*  I 


••W-*  3fc. 


3* 


•i*"-*:*-' 


■**.- 


Si 


**. 


■*: 


;^:' 


*•*- 


. 


m&* 


r'-v 


W.' 


:# 


M 


■i 


»  » 


LIBRARY  OF  THE  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


BL    51    .B59    1897 

Bixby,  James  Thompson,  1843 
1921. 

Religion  and  science  as 
allies 


I 


W* 


■*■** 


■«& 


:*m** 


*^! 


■i&#: 


Mi 


*.^: 


.*•-.- 


■**      ;?*** 


."iSC 


!*-*••* 


■v2>- 


:*« 


*  -"*-- 


'*&& 


■#*■*■'■* 


,** 


<*'-*^ 


■*3£f 


^ 


*  < 


( 


V 

22 


RELIGION  AND  SCIENCE 

AS  ALLIES 


OR 


SIMILARITIES    OF   PHYSICAL    AND    RELIGIOUS 

KNOWLEDGE 


BY 


JAMES  THOMPSON   BIXBY 

Doctor    of  Philosophy  of  the    University   of  Leipzig 
Author  of '■'•The  Crisis  in  Morals'''' 


BOSTON 
Geo.  H.  Ellis,  141   Franklin  Street 

1S97 


COPYRIGHT 

James  T    Bixby 


u  Science  was  Faith  once ;  Faith  were  Science  now 
Would  she  but  lay  her  bow  and  arrow  by, 
And  arm  her  with  the  weapons  of  the  time." 

"  In  vain  would  the  skeptic  make  a  distinction  between  science 
and  common  life,  or  between  one  science  and  another.  The  argu- 
ments employed  in  all,  if  just,  are  of  a  similar  nature  and  contain  the 
same  force  and  evidence.  Or,  if  there  be  any  difference  among  them, 
tne  advantage  lies  entirely  on  the  side  of  theology  and  natural  re- 
iigion." — Cleanthes,  in  Hume's  "  Dialog ces,"  Part  I. 


CONTEXTS. 


INTRODUCTION. 

PASS 

The  Present  Antagonism  of  Science  and  ReHgion. — Hurtfulness 
of  it. — Need  of  a  Reconciliation  between  them. — Proposed 
Method  of  effecting  this,  which  constitutes  the  Object  of 
this  Book 7 


CHAPTER  I. 

What  is  Science  ? — What  is  Religion  ? — No  Necessary  and  Right- 
ful Antagonism  between  them,  when  fully  understood  .     16 

CHAPTER  II. 

Causes  of  the  Actual  Antagonism  of  the  Scientific  and  the  Re- 
ligious Worlds. — Ignorance  of  themselves. — Ignorance  of 
each  other. — Science  confounded  with  Metaphysics  and  Va- 
rious Speculations. — Religion  confounded  with  Ecclesiasti- 
cal Organizations  and  Theological  Systems  .         .         .25 

CHAPTER  III. 

The  Claim  of  Religion  to  possess  Exclusive  Information,  and, 
consequently,  a  Rightful  Sovereignty  of  Knowledge. — Hu- 
man Conditions  and  Fallible  Character  of  Religion. — Divine 
Origin  of  Science. — Help  and  Correction  received  by  Re- 
ligion from  Science 44 


Q  CONTEXTS. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

PAGB 

The  Claims  of  Science  to  possess  Exclusive  Information  and 
Rightful  Sovereignty  of  the  Realm  of  Knowledge. — The 
Faiths  of  Science. — Grounds  and  Methods. — Scientific  Em- 
ployment of  Intuition,  Testimony,  Authority,  Analogy,  and 
Hypothesis,  and  Frequent  Lack  of  Verification  .         .         .66 

CHAPTER  V. 

Supposed  Differences  between  Science  and  Religion  in  their  Aims 
and  Objects. — Faith  of  Science  in  the  Supersensual,  in  the 
Immaterial,  in  the  Inconceivable,  and  in  the  Infinite  .         .116 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Supposed  Difference  between  Science  and  Religion  in  their  Re- 
sults.— Uncertainty,  Inexactness,  and  Variability,  attach  to 
Scientific  as  well  as  to  Theological  Results  .         .         .164 


'o 


CHAPTER  VII. 

The  Scientific  Basis  of  Religion. — Inductive  Proof  of  the  Two 
Essentials  of  Theism,  the  Existence  of  the  Soul  and  of 
God. — Observation  of  Facts,  Classification,  Inductions,  and 
Verification 186 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

Conclusion. — Science  and  Religion   as  Fellow-Laborers  in  the 

Divine  Service    .  .         .  ....  220 


PHYSICAL  AKD   RELIGIOUS 
KNOWLEDGE. 


IXTRODUCTIOI. 

The  conflict  now  going  on  between  the  physical 
discoveries  and  theories  of  these  latter  days,  and  the 
forms  of  faith  which  have  hitherto  ruled  the  mind 
of  Christendom,  is  one  of  the  most  noticeable  phe- 
nomena of  the  intellectual  movement  of  the  times. 
The  constant  discussions  from  pulpit  and  platform, 
the  numerous  essays,  pamphlets,  and  books,  in  which 
these  two  opponents  are  arrayed  one  against  the 
other,  and  attack,  defense,  or  effort  at  reconciliation 
made,  allow  no  intelligent  man  or  woman  to  remain 
unaware  of  the  controversy. 

It  is  a  fact,  so  notorious  that  we  need  specify  no 
particular  instances  nor  details,  that,  by  a  large  part 
of  the  Church,  modern  science  is  looked  upon  as  a 
godless  and  blind  teacher,  a  sacrilegious  intruder 
upon  the  domain  of  revealed  truth,  and  that,  among 
almost  all  denominations  and  phases  of  religious 
thought,  there  has  been  more  or  less  suspicion,  jeal- 


8        PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

ousy,  and  abuse  of  physical  investigation.  It  is  a 
fact  almost  equally  patent  that,  on  the  part  of  sci- 
ence likewise,  among  many,  at  least,  of  its  repre- 
sentatives, there  is  a  similar  hostility  entertained 
toward  religion,  and  that  not  only  all  ecclesiastical 
organizations,  but  all  spiritual  faith  and  principles, 
are  looked  upon  as  their  natural  foes. 

Now,  this  present  antagonism  of  religion  and 
science  is  a  matter  which  may  justly  give  concern, 
I  believe,  to  all  who  have  at  heart  the  welfare  of 
either.  It  is  becoming  quite  plain  to  all  clear- 
sighted observers  that  religion  certainly  cannot  af- 
ford the  continuance  of  any  such  quarrel. 

"  The  problem  of  our  age,"  said  Archdeacon 
Hare,  in  his  life  of  Sterling,  "  is  to  reconcile  faith 
with  knowledge,  philosophy  with  religion.  The 
men  of  our  age  will  not  believe  unless  you  prove 
to  them  that  what  they  are  called  upon  to  believe 
does  not  contradict  the  laws  of  their  minds,  and 
that  it  rests  upon  a  solid  and  unshaken  foundation." 

In  former  conflicts,  the  struggle  had  been  to 
preserve  the  Church  from  division,  or  the  orthodox 
doctrine  from  aberrations  or  perversions. 

In  the  present  controversy,  the  debate  concerns 
the  fundamental  ideas  of  religion.  Twenty-five 
years  ago  Dr.  Newman  said  to  a  sectarian  contro- 
versialist, "Let  us  discuss  the  prospects  of  Christi- 
anity itself,  instead  of  the  differences  between  An- 
glican and  Catholic."  To-day  such  a  change  of 
front  is  still  more  necessary.     More  than  ever  be- 


IXTRODUCTIOX.  9 

fore  it  is  the  citadel  of  Christianity,  rather  than  her 
outposts,  that  needs  to  be  defended.  The  wise  Chris- 
tian will  turn  his  arms  from  these  petty  skirmishes 
about  tapers  and  genuflexions,  millinery  of  priests 
and  wording  of  creeds,  the  sense  of  Hebrew  numer- 
als and  the  supernatural  efficacy  of  drops  of  water, 
to  ward  off  the  blows  of  a  nearer  enemy — an  in- 
vader who  is  pushing  his  way  already  with  uplifted 
battle-axe  into  the  Holy  of  Holies. 

In  former  assaults  upon  religion,  it  was  cynics, 
and  wTorldlings,  and  doubters  of  every  thing,  who 
led  the  attack.  Jest  and  jibe,  scoff  and  sneer,  were 
the  favorite  weapons  of  attack.  Believers  had  only 
to  stand  firm  in  courage  and  patience  on  the  unas- 
sailed  foundations  of  their  faith,  and  the  strong  cur- 
rents of  man's  instinctive  yearnings  would  before 
long  turn  the  tide  of  popular  opinion  the  other  way, 
and  bring  the  Church  safely  through  its  peril.  To- 
day, however,  the  objections  presented  against  re- 
ligion are  brought  forward  in  no  frivolous  spirit, 
from  no  mere  feverish  mental  excitability  or  love  of 
innovation,  but  in  the  sincerity  of  an  earnest  loyalty 
to  truth,  out  of  a  serious  desire  to  get  at  the  reality 
of  things,  through  all  illusions  and  at  all  risks.  It 
is  not  ridicule,  but  reason,  that  leads  the  assault. 
The  weapons  are  not  the  clown's  bells  and  grinning 
mask,  but  the  astronomer's  spectroscope,  the  biolo- 
gist's flask.  The  scales  in  which  Christianity  would 
now  be  tested  are  not  those  of  universal  skepticism, 
but  of    cautious,  critical  weighing  of  historic  evi- 


10      PHYSICAL  AXD  RELIGIOUS  KXOWLEDGE. 

dence  and  scientific  proof.  This  method,  of  course, 
is  a  slower  one  than  that  of  the  French  encyclope- 
dists. Religion  has  not  to  fear  that  any  such  rapid 
and  radical  revolution  can  now  occur  in  the  belief  of 
Christendom  as  was  wrought  in  France  in  the  last 
quarter  of  the  eighteenth  century.  But  it  is  a  much 
more  dangerous  course  to  its  adversary.  The  ground 
it  gains  it  keeps.  Like  an  Alpine  glacier,  its  slow, 
gigantic  plane  grinds  to  powder  the  most  flinty  ob- 
structions, and  never  loses  a  foot  of  ground  that  it 
has  once  taken.  For  four  hundred  years  Science  has 
driven  the  Church  from  post  to  post.  The  sphericity 
or  the  flatness  of  the  earth,  the  mobility  or  stationa- 
riness  of  the  globe,  the  six  days'  creation,  the  six 
thousand  years'  age  of  the  world  and  of  man,  the 
universal  deluge — these  all  have  been  battle-fields 
where  the  scientist  and  the  ecclesiastic  have  met  in 
conflict,  and  in  every  engagement  it  has  been  the 
ecclesiastic  that  has  been  worsted,  and  the  scientist 
that  has  been  victorious.  The  result  is,  that  science 
to-day  holds  such  a  position  that  the  belief  of  the 
next  century  may  be  said  to  lie  in  its  hands.  The 
facts  that  its  distinguished  savans  establish  to-day, 
in  six  months  will  be  read  in  every  newspaper  and 
magazine  in  the  civilized  world ;  in  ten  years  will 
be  incorporated  in  our  school-books,  and  planted  in 
the  forming  minds  of  our  children ;  in  thirty  years 
will  be  the  creed  of  every  educated  man ;  and,  be- 
fore a  century  has  passed,  will  be  the  universal  be- 
lief of  all  classes.     If  Christianity  cannot  harmonize 


INTR  OB  UCTION.  \  \ 

aerself  with  science,  it  is  much  to  be  feared  that  the 
fate  of  the  Ptolemaic  system  of  the  universe  will,  at 
no  very  distant  period,  be  hers  ;  at  least,  no  one  can 
doubt  that  the  future  of  Religion  would  be  vastly 
more  sure  and  prosperous  if  she  could  make  science 
an  ally  instead  of  a  rival. 

ISTor  for  science,  either,  is  it  a  matter  of  indiffer- 
ence what  its  relation  toward  religion  is.  AVhile 
science  stands,  or  is  believed  to  stand,  in  an  atti- 
tude of  hostility  to  religion,  it  carries  an  unnecessary 
burden,  which  impedes  no  little  its  progress.  The 
antagonism,  whether  it  be  real  or  only  supposed, 
weakens  its  power  and  circumscribes  its  sphere  of 
influence.  It  diverts  its  attention  from  its  proper 
work  to  uncalled-for  polemics.  It  vitiates  the  im- 
partiality of  judgment  and  equanimity  of  tempera- 
ment which  are  required  of  it.  Moreover,  it  is  only, 
I  venture  to  say,  when  science  can  gain  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  religious  spirit,  and  be  led  forward  and 
upward  by  such  a  conviction  as  animated  Kepler, 
that,  in  tracing  out  the  laws  of  Nature,  he  was  think- 
ing God's  thoughts  after  him — it  is  only  when  pur- 
sued in  this  mood,  I  believe,  that  science  can  do  its 
best  work. 

To  bring,  then,  these  two  poles  of  modern  thought 
into  harmonious  relations  with  each  other,  is  a  work 
of  prime  importance.  On  it  depend  the  integrity 
and  coordination  of  those  two  factors  of  man's  high- 
er existence — the  aspirations  of  his  soul  and  the  per- 
ceptions of  his  intellect — for  whose  development  all 


12      PHYSICAL  A  XL  RELIGIOUS  KXOWLELGE. 

other  things  are  but  instrumentalities.  It  is  one  of 
those  questions  that  cannot  be  discussed  too  much. 
It  may  be  worn  threadbare,  but  it  cannot  be  shoved 
out  of  sight.  The  multitude  of  writings  and  publi- 
cations concerning  it  but  show  how  profound  and 
universal  is  the  interest  in  it.  It  is  because  of  this 
interest  that  I  venture  to  contribute  a  few  thoughts, 
designed,  if  possible,  to  clear  up  some  of  the  compli- 
cations and  remove  some  of  the  oppositions  of  the 
controversy.  My  purpose  is  not,  I  wish  it  to  be 
understood,  to  smooth  over  any  real  difficulties,  to 
bridge  an}'  natural  hiatuses,  or  to  accommodate  or 
compromise  any  inherent  antagonisms.  Such  work 
is  always,  I  believe,  useless,  if  not  mischievous.  Nor 
is  it  to  do,  what  so  many  have  essayed,  to  show  de- 
tailed coincidences  or  particular  correspondences  be- 
tween the  present  results  of  science  and  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Scriptures  ;  to  demonstrate  how  the  six 
days  of  creation  answer  to  the  epochs  of  modern 
geology  ;  to  exhibit  the  agreement  of  ethnography 
with  mankind's  descent  from  "a  single  couple;  to 
illustrate  by  modern  hygiene  the  wisdom  of  the  Le- 
vitical  regulations ;  or  to  disclose,  in  expressions  of 
Job,  or  David,  or  Isaiah,  anticipations  of  modern 
discoveries.  A  flexile  and  ingenious  interpreter,  not 
over-scrupulous  about  twisting  words  and  forcing 
facts,  can  always  do  this.  As  Prof.  Huxley  has 
said,  "  One  never  knows  what  exegetic  ingenuity 
may  make  of  the  original  Hebrew."  In  that  grand 
storehouse  of  thought  and  imagination,  that  vener- 


IXTR  OD  UCTIOX.  13 

able  encyclopaedia  of  all  the  poetry,  science,  history, 
and  philosophy,  in  which  the  Jewish  mind  flowered 
under  the  inspiration  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  in  that 
Bible  whose  original  and  proper  name,  we  should  al- 
ways remember,  is,  the  Books  (ra  /3cj3\ta),  not  the 
Book — in  that  grand  storehouse  it  is  always  pos- 
sible to  find  plenty  of  parallels,  more  or  less  strong, 
for  almost  every  conceivable  notion.  Each  past 
generation  has  found  there  its  favorite  theories  :  in 
Tertullian's  age,  the  materiality  of  the  soul ;  in  Au- 
gustine's, the  flatness  of  the  earth ;  in  the  time  of 
the  schoolmen,  the  Aristotelian  philosophy  :  fifty 
years  ago,  the  cataclysmal  systems  of  geology,  the 
Cuvierian  distinction  of  species,  the  creation  from 
the  dust  and  primitive  enlightenment  of  man  by  di- 
rect exertion  of  supernatural  power;  to-day,  it  is  but 
little  more  difficult  to  find  in  the  same  pages  author- 
ity or  allowance  for  the  nebular  hypothesis,  the  evo- 
lution theory,  and  the  savage  if  not  animal  origin  of 
civilized  man  ; 1  to-morrow,  again,  the  same  method 
of  interpretation  may  show  the  coincidence  of  the 
Scriptures  with  whatever  newer  discovery  Science 
may  have  made,  or  imagined  that  she  has  made.    The 

1  The  Rev.  Mr.  Mahin,  for  instance,  in  a  communication  to  The 
Popular  Science  Monthly,  p.  487,  August,  1875,  says:  "Even  the 
modern  doctrine  of  evolution — Darwinism,  if  you  please — is  as  nearly 
taught  in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  as  in  ;he  revelations  of  modern 
science ;  and  spontaneous  generation  seeus  to  appear  on  the  very 
face  of  the  statements  of  Moses  as  therein  recorded.  Read  verses 
20  and  24 :  '  And  God  said,  Let  the  waters  bring  forth  abundantly? 
etc.     'And  God  said,  Let  the  earth  bring  forth?  etc." 


14:     PHYSICAL  AXD  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

hunting  up  of  such  correspondences  is  of  very  little 
value  for  any  permanent  reconciliation  between  sci- 
ence and  religion.  As  the  Dean  of  Canterbury,  Dr. 
Payne  Smith,  has  well  said,1  "  If  the  wisest  geolo- 
gist of  our  days  could  show  that  there  was  an  exact 
agreement  between  geology  and  the  Bible,  it  would 
rather  disprove  than  prove  its  truth.  For,  as  geol- 
ogy is  a  growing  science,  it  would  prove  the  agree- 
ment of  the  Bible  with  that  which  is  receiving  daily 
additions,  and  is  constantly  undergoing  modification, 
and  ten  years  hence  the  two  would  be  at  hopeless 
variance."  The  closer  the  coincidence  happens  to 
be  shown  in  this  present  hour,  the  sooner  it  is  likely 
disagreement  will  be  revealed  by  the  advancement 
of  science,  and  the  present  interpretation  of  the  sa- 
cred text  become  obsolete  and  require  revision.  The 
continual  varying  of  her  interpretation,  and  shifting 
of  her  ground,  to  which  Religion  is  necessitated,  when 
by  this  method  it  seeks  reconciliation  with  physi- 
cal knowledge,  inevitably  throws  discredit  upon  her. 
It  makes  Faith  appear  as  a  defendant,  continually 
obliged  to  Science  for  permission  to  live  ;  as  a  satel- 
lite reflecting  the  varying  phases  of  the  scientific 
primary,  rather  than  as  an  independent  power — the 
central,  self-subsistent  Sun  of  Righteousness. 

My  aim,  then,  contemplates  none  of  these  objects 
or  methods.  It  is,  instead,  looking  at  religion  and 
science  in  their  broadest  and  most  essential  features, 

1  P.  175,  "  Modern  Skepticism,"  Lectures  of  the  Christian  Evidence 
Society. 


1NTR  OB  UCTION.  \  5 

to  set  forth  the  underlying  unities  of  physical  and 
religious  knowledge  ;  the  common  foundations  on 
which  they  really  rest ;  the  similarities  of  methods, 
objects,  and  general  results,  which  exist  between 
them,  and  the  actual  identity  of  interests  which 
binds  them  together,  and  which  should  be  acknowl- 
edged in  word,  thought,  and  action. 


16       PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE 


CHAPTER   I. 

NO    NECESSARY     ANTAGONISM    BETWEEN     SCIENCE     AND 

RELIGION. 

Is  there  any  necessary  antagonism  between  Sci 
ence  and  Religion  ? 

This  is  the  first  and  main  question  in  determin- 
ing their  relations.  This  is  the  question  which  all 
well-wishers  of  either  ought  carefully  to  examine. 
For  myself,  I  find  the  most  thorough  search  show- 
ing an  entire  absence  of  any  essential  incompatibil- 
ity. An  apparent  and  de  facto  conflict  exists,  and 
has  existed  for  centuries.  But  there  is  no  required 
and  rightful  opposition.  For  if  we  look  straight  at 
them,  endeavoring  to  distinguish  them  from  the 
many  other  things  that  have  borne  their  names  and 
claimed  their  dignities,  what  are  they  %  What,  in 
strictness,  is  science  %  What,  exactly,  is  religion  ? 
There  are  no  authoritative  definitions  of  either. 
There  is,  probably,  no  unanimous  agreement  in 
either  the  scientific  world  or  the  religious  world  as 
to  the  signification  of  either  term.  Many  and  vari- 
ous definitions  have  been  proposed.  There  are  few 
that  are  not  imperfect.     After  a  careful  considera- 


NO  NECESSAR  Y  A NTA  G  ONISM.  i  7 

tion,  I  think  I  ruay  say,  however,  that  the  following 
ought  to  be  accepted,  as  at  least  dealing  fairly  with 
both  sides  in  the  present  question : 

For  science,  there  are,  in  the  present  day,  two 
chief  significations,  differing,  however,  only  in  ex- 
tent. In  its  broader  sense  it  signifies  all  systema- 
tized and  trustworthy  knowledge.  It  takes,  as  its 
field,  all  that  can  be  known  with  reasonable  certain- 
ty, and  affiliated  with  previous  knowledge  into  a  con- 
sistent whole.  In  its  narrower  and  more  special 
sense,  science,  in  modern  times,  has  come  to  be  re- 
stricted to  that  portion  of  systematized  and  certain 
knowledge  which  can  he  gained  by  a  study  of  the 
physical  universe. 

Religion  has  also  two  main  significations : 
1.  In  its  most  general  significance  it  is  the  ex- 
pression of  marts  spiritual  nature  awakening  to 
spiritual  things.  As  the  spiritual  nature  manifests 
itself  in  the  various  channels  of  the  human  organism, 
this  expression  takes  on  various  forms.  Manifested 
through  the  intellect,  it  gives  us  religious  knowl- 
edge or  belief ;  through  the  heart,  religious  senti- 
ments and  attractions ;  through  the  executive  or- 
gans, religious  worship  and  action.  This  expression 
of  the  spiritual  nature  varies,  of  course,  in  strength, 
clearness,  and  elevation.  In  some,  especially  in 
savage  races  and  early  times,  it  is  gross  and  feeble ; 
in  others  it  is  intense,  pure,  and  lofty.  Primitive- 
ly, it  gave  very  likely  only  a  sense  of  occult  intelli- 
gent  energies,  animating  the  man,  the  cloud,  the 


18       PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

wind,  the  sky,  looked  upon  with  fear,  placated, 
shunned,  or  defied ;  ultimately,  it  rises  to  a  recogni- 
tion of  a  moral  and  spiritual  being  in  man  capable 
of  eternal  existence,  and  attains  also  a  sense  of  an 
Infinite  and  Creative  Spirit,  on  whom  man  is  de- 
pendent, and  to  whom  he  owes  gratitude,  obedience, 
and  reverence. 

This  is  the  broader  signification  of  religion. 

2.  In  a  more  special  sense  it  is  restricted  to  the 
particular  beliefs  or  knowledges  attained  to  in  this 
unfolding  of  the  spiritual  nature.  As  these  beliefs 
or  knowledges  form  the  justification  for  the  senti- 
ments and  action  which  constitute  the  rest  of  re- 
ligion, the  first  come  to  be  spoken  of  as  the  whole 
of  religion.  Of  these  beliefs,  some  are  inessential, 
some  essential.  Where  the  line  should  be  drawn 
has  been  hotly  disputed,  and  every  one,  almost, 
makes  a  different  enumeration.  It  seems  to  me 
that  only  three  can  be  properly  regarded  as  neces- 
sary to  the  very  existence  of  religion : 

1.  Belief  in  a  soul  within  man. 

2.  Belief  in  a  sovereign  Over-soul  without. 

3.  Belief  in  actual  or  possible  relations  between 
them. 

Now,  if  the  significations  of  science  and  reli- 
gion may  be  taken  to  be  substantially  such  as  they 
have  just  been  given,  there  is  certainly  no  rightful 
antagonism  between  them. 

Looking  at  the  relations  of  the  two  from  the 


NO  NECESSAR Y  ANTAGONISM.  1<J 

point  of  view  of  the  first  definition  of  science,  i.  e., 
systematized  knowledge  in  general,  then  religion  in 
its  first  signification,  as  the  expression  of  man's 
spiritual  nature,  would  be  just  a  part  of  the  facts 
which  science  is  to  study  and  systematize.  The 
sentiments  of  gratitude  and  aspiration,  the  peculi- 
arities of  worship,  the  forms  of  belief  which  reli- 
gious history  exhibits,  are  just  as  much  phenomena 
of  the  world,  just  as  much  facts  of  the  Kosmos,  as 
the  markings  of  a  fiower  or  the  transformation  of  a 
butterfly.  Nay,  they  are  the  noblest  and  the  most 
significant  of  phenomena,  and  Science  could  never 
claim  to  be  complete  if  it  did  not  receive  them  as  a 
subject  of  inquiry  and  systematization.  The  result 
of  such  an  inquiry  and  systematization  of  spiritual 
facts  would  constitute  religious  science.  Religion, 
in  the  more  special  sense,  "the  particular  knowl- 
edges or  beliefs  attained  to  by  the  awakening  of 
man's  spiritual  nature,"  more  or  less  coincides  with 
this,  and  forms  a  subdivision  of  science,  just  in  the 
degree  that  its  doctrines  are  valid  and  systematically 
coordinated  with  each  other  and  the  facts  which 
were  their  data.  Normally,  then,  science  is  not 
complete  till  religion,  in  its  general  signification,  be- 
comes one  of  its  objects  of  investigation,  and,  in  its 
special  signification,  becomes  a  part  of  science  itself. 
Science  can  no  more  have  grounds  for  a  quarrel  with 
religion  than  she  can  have  grounds  for  a  quarrel  with 
the  phenomena  of  atomic  affinity,  molecular  vibra- 
tion and  molar  attraction  and  repulsion,  or  be  at 


20       PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

odds  with,  the  systematization  of  these  phenomena 
into  laws  of  chemistry  and  electricity,  and  with  the 
inferring  from  them  of  chemical  and  electrical  forces 
as  causes.  If  the  phenomena  of  religion  appear  in- 
congruous with  other  phenomena,  they  are  not  there- 
fore to  be  denied,  or  ignored,  or  ridiculed,  but  studied 
with  the  more  care,  as  likely  to  reveal  new  laws  and 
causes.  If  the  laws  and  causes  at  present  assigned 
to  them  seem  erroneously  inferred,  it  is  the  business 
of  Science  to  assist  Religion  in  making  a  better  sys- 
tematization of  her  facts. 

Looking  at  the  question  next  from  the  stand-point 
of  the  more  special  sense  of  science,  the  systematized 
knowledge  derived  from  the  study  of  the  physical 
universe,  then  religion,  both  in  its  general  and  spe- 
cial sense,  would,  to  a  certain  extent,  stand  outside 
of  science.  Science  and  religion  would  each  have 
in  a  certain  sense  separate  fields,  or  rather  separate 
beginnings  and  points  of  view.  They  would  not 
then  be  antagonistic,  but  supplementary.  If,  now, 
looking  at  different  realms  of  the  Kosmos,  they 
should  both  come  to  the  same  result  on  any  point, 
such  as  the  existence  of  God  or  the  soul,  the  agree- 
ment of  such  independent  investigations  would  have 
especial  weight.  But,  if  they  should  fail  to  see  ex- 
actly the  same  thing,  this  would  not  put  them  into 
antagonism,  but  rather  would  be  what  we  should  ex- 
pect. Diverse  posts  of  observation  naturally  give 
diverse  views,  especially  when  the  subject  of  study, 
as  in  this  case,  is  immense  and  complex.     Positive 


NO  NEC  ESS  A  R  Y  ANT  A  G  ONISM.  2 1 

testimony,  of  course,  would  have  to  be  received 
from  both,  and  united  as  well  as  might  be.  But 
negative  testimony  from  one  side  would  be  of  no 
avail  to  contradict  the  positive  testimony  from  the 
other.  Because  the  touch  feels  none  of  the  sound- 
vibrations  of  the  air,  this  throws  no  discredit  on  the 
testimony  of  the  ear  that  it  hears  sounds.  The  fact 
that  the  eye  sees  no  odor  come  from  the  flower  es- 
tablishes no  antagonism  between  it  and  the  olfactory 
organ  that  smells  it.  If  physical  science  reports  that, 
neither  by  the  balance,  the  dissecting-knife,  nor  the 
lens,  it  has  found  trace  of  any  spiritual  Being,  this 
no  more  disproves  the  direct  testimony  of  the  reli- 
gious faculties,  that  by  their  methods  and  organs  they 
do  find  it,  than  the  inability  of  the  spiritual  facul- 
ties to  discover  the  laws  of  motion  and  matter  dis- 
proves the  testimony  of  science  to  them.  If  the  in- 
vestigation of  Nature  should  not  disclose  anywhere 
(though  I  believe  it  does  everywhere)  evidence  of  a 
First  Cause,  this  would  no  more  contradict  religion 
than  the  failure  of  religion  to  disclose  the  secondary 
causes  of  phenomena  contradicts  science.  The  word 
of  each  is  good  for  its  own  account,  and  in  its  own 
sphere.  Contradiction,  and  necessary  antagonism, 
would  arise  only  by  one  establishing  the  non-exist- 
ence of  the  other's  domain,  and  the  entire  fictitious- 
ness  of  the  sources  of  knowledge  it  claims,  a  thing 
which  either  of  the  two  would  have  to  step  squarely 
outside  of  its  own  proper  field  even  to  begin  to  at- 
tempt.    Modern  physical  science,  especially,  could 


22       PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

not  rightfully  essay  this,  for  one  of  its  cardinal  prin- 
ciples is  the  unity  of  the  whole  universe,  the  latent 
truth  and  reality  of  all  persistent  forces.  In  point 
of  fact,  the  extreme  outcome  of  modern  scientific  re- 
searches essays  no  disproof  of  the  religious  theories 
of  the  world,  nor  any  demonstration  that  there  is  no 
God  in  the  world,  nor  soul  in  man,  but  simply  pre- 
sents a  confession  of  the  insufficiency  of  physical  in- 
quiry to  attain,  as  yet,  by  inductive  methods,  a  similar 
result.  Nay,  it  does  not  seek  to  deny,  but  it  openly 
avows,  that  there  is  an  infinite  mystery  behind  and 
beneath  all  the  phenomena  which  it  studies,  all  the 
laws  it  has  formulated,  all  the  secondary  causes  it 
has  reached.  Some  men  of  science,  it  is  true,  from 
this  inability  of  their  own  processes,  as  yet,  to  fathom 
the  mystery,  deny  that  any  method  or  faculty  can 
fathom  it.  But  this  is  no  correct  inference.  It  i-. 
instead,  a  groundless,  a  thoroughly  unscientific  as- 
sumption. It  is  the  faith  of  science  that  progress  in 
knowledge  is  unending.  The  man  of  science  must 
be  always  seeking.  To  identify  the  limit  where  prog- 
ress is  at  present  arrested  with  the  absolute  limit  of 
possible  knowledge  is  opposed  to  the  whole  spirit  of 
modern  inquiry.  Nor,  if  Science  concludes  that  its 
own  methods  and  instruments  are  unavailing  to  reach 
religious  truth,  is  that  a  reason  for  rejecting  also  the 
testimony  which  the  spiritual  faculties  have  from  of 
old  given  to  spiritual  things?  Rather,  it  is  an  ad- 
monition to  the  earnest  seeker  to  turn  in  prefer- 
ence to  this  other  oracle  as  the.  proper  interpreter 


NO  NEC  ESS AR  Y  ANT  A  G  ONISM.  23 

of  the  divine  mysteries,  and  the  better  guide  to  its 
treasures. 

From  the  scientific  stand-point,  then,  there  is  no 
rightful  quarrel  between  Science  and  Religion. 

Is  there  any  from  the  religious  stand-point? 
What  is  there  in  this  expression  of  man's  spiritual 
nature,  in  any  of  its  legitimate  manifestations,  that 
demands  of  it  to  draAv  a  sword  against  knowledge  of 
any  kind  ?  Which  one  of  these  expressions  of  the 
spiritual  nature  is  it  that  needs  to  fight  physical 
science  ?  Is  it  love,  aspiration,  reverence,  self-sacri- 
fice, or  any  other  of  the  religious  sentiments  ?  Is  it 
philanthropy,  purity,  justice,  consecration,  or  any 
other  element  of  the  religious  life?  Surely,  none 
of  these  may  properly  combat  science.  Nor  has  the 
intellectual  expression  of  the  spiritual  nature,  the 
fundamental  beliefs  which,  in  a  special  sense,  are 
called  religion,  any  better  reason  for  opposition  to 
science.  For  the  religious  believer,  just  in  propor- 
tion to  the  strength  of  his  belief  in  the  Creative 
Power,  the  Divine  Omnipotence  and  Omnipresence, 
must  believe  that  Nature  is  no  independent  power, 
man's  perceptive  and  reasoning  faculties  no  unmean- 
ing or  deceptive  instruments,  but  that  both  physical 
and  human  nature  are  works  of  God,  existing  as 
he  wishes  them  to  exist,  reflecting  his  mind  and 
purposes,  and  therefore  trustworthy  witnesses  of 
him.  No  opening  of  men's  eyes  to  the  facts  of  the 
world,  no  disclosing  of  the  actual  methods  and  laws 
of  the  Creation,  can  do  any  thing  else  (so  the  truly 


24       PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

religious  should  believe)  than  reveal  the  more  clear- 
ly the  existence  and  character  of  their  Maker.  It 
may  reveal  him  as  acting  in  ways  that  we  had  not 
supposed.  It  may  compel  Theology  to  revise  its 
schemes.  But  this  revision  Religion  must  look  upon 
as  received  from  God's  own  hand,  and  simply  bring- 
ing us  nearer  the  divine  reality  and  truth.  He  who 
confounds  the  march  of  intellect  with  the  opera- 
tions of  the  devil,  evidently  inclines  to  trace  his 
own  origin  to  Satan  rather  than  to  believe  the  word 
of  Scripture,  that  man  was  made  in  the  image  of 
God,  and  that  God  saw  all  the  works  that  he  had 
made,  and  behold  they  were  good.  To  the  intelli- 
gent Theist,  the  record  which  the  geologist  deci- 
phers in  the  rocks  is  a  revelation  written  by  the 
same  divine  linger  as  that  other  revelation  which 
the  theologian  reads  in  the  Psalms  of  David  or  the 
letters  of  Paul.  To  the  enlightened  Christian  there 
is  truth  to  be  learned  about  God  everywhere  in  the 
material  and  moral  universe  ;  and  no  religious  stud- 
ies can  be  regarded  as  complete  or  satisfactory  that 
neglect  or  ignore  that  grand  source  of  divine  in- 
struction which  God's  handiwork  presents  to  us. 


CAUSES   OF  ACTUAL  ANTAGONISM.  25 


CHAPTER   II. 

CAUSES     OF    THE     ACTUAL    ANTAGONISM    OF   THE     SCIEN- 
TIFIC   AND    THE    RELIGIOUS    WORLD. 

Religion  and  Science,  then,  have  no  good  cause 
for  antagonism,  but  rather  for  amity  and  sympathy. 
"Why,  then,  should  they  have  had  so  many  apparent 
conflicts ;  why  should  there  be  so  much  jealousy, 
suspicion,  and  ill-feeling,  between  scientific  and  re- 
ligious bodies  ? 

There  are  many  causes.  But  the  main  ones  are 
these  three :  First  and  chief,  ignorance.  Few  of  the 
religious  have  understood  religion.  They  have  been 
familiar,  of  course,  with  its  practical  applications ; 
the  forms  of  worship  ;  the  moral  and  philanthropical 
duties  which  it  has  demanded.  Thev  have  studied 
carefully  Scripture  texts,  and  writings  of  the  fathers, 
and  the  creeds  of  the  councils ;  but  about  the  funda- 
mental principles  of  religion,  its  real  grounds,  lim- 
its, and  proper  domain,  there  has  been  a  great  lack 
of  knowledge. 

Similarly,  few  scientific  men  have  really  com- 
prehended science.  Facts  of  chemistry,  of  astrono- 
my, of  geology,  they  have  learned  with  wonderful 
2 


26      PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

thoroughness ;  but  the  principles  of  scientific  inves- 
tigation, its  capabilities  and  limits,  the)'  have  known 
little  of.  Physicists  speak  familiarly  of  scientific 
method,  bnt  "  they  could  not,"  says  Prof.  Jevons,1 
"  readily  describe  what  they  mean  by  that  expres- 
sion. Profoundly  engaged  in  the  study  of  particu- 
lar classes  of  natural  phenomena,  they  are  usually  too 
much  engrossed  in  the  immense  and  ever-accumu- 
lating details  of  their  special  sciences,  to  generalize 
upon  the  methods  of  reasoning  which  they  uncon- 
sciously employ."  Prof.  Jevons's  words  find  a  no- 
ticeable illustration  in  the  fact  that  the  only  consid- 
erable  treatises  upon  scientific  method,  or  the  prin- 
ciples of  physical  inquiry  which  have  been  written 
in  the  present  century,  Mill's  "Logic  of  the  In- 
ductive Sciences,"  Whewell's  "Philosophy  of  the 
Inductive    Sciences"    and    "History   of    Scientific 

%J 

Ideas,"  and  Jevons's  own  "  Principles  of  Science," 
are  all  the  works  of  metaphysicians  rather  than  of 
physicists,  of  mental  philosophers  rather  than  natu- 
ral philosophers.  And  if  few,  either  of  the  religious 
or  the  scientific  world,  have  reallv  understood  the 
principles  and  proper  limits  of  their  own  studies, 
still  fewer  have  understood  the  principles  and  prop- 
er sphere  of  the  other.  Prof.  Trowbridge,  in  a  re- 
cent number  of  The  Popular  Science  Monthly, 
called  attention  to  the  insufficient  acquaintance  of 

1  Preface  to  "  The  Principles  of  Science,"  by  W.  Stanley  Jevons, 
Professor  of  Logic  and  Political  Economy  in  Owens  College,  Man- 
chester, England. 


CAUSES    OF  ACTUAL  ANTAGONISM.  27 

ministers  of  religion  with  science.  He  quoted  the 
courses  of  study  presented  in  our  principal  theologi- 
cal schools,  and  showed  how  very  small  a  measure 
of  attention  was  given  to  physical  studies,  and  how 
absurdly  some  preachers  deliver  their  ignorant  ipse 
dixits  upon  scientific  topics.  Although  theologi- 
ans are  continually  declaring,  that  the  most  danger- 
ous enemy  of  religion  to-day  is  science,  they  seem 
to  have  gained  no  realizing  sense  of  the  fact,  and 
what  it  demands  of  them.  They  still  imagine  that 
the  battle  of  the  Evidences  is  to  be  fought  on  the 
Held  of  ecclesiastical  history,  scriptural  exegesis,  and 
metaphysical  postulates.  They  still  practise  with 
dictionary  and  concordance,  as  if  the  age  of  crucible 
and  spectroscope  had  not  come  in.  The  great  need 
of  our  theologians  to-day  is,  to  recognize  the  mighty 
turn  which  modern  thought  has  taken,  the  new  base 
of  operations  which  it  demands,  and  the  new  weap- 
ons it  requires.  As  Hugh  Miller  said  years  ago, 
"  Before  the  churches  can  be  prepared,  competently, 
to  deal  with  the  infidelity  of  an  age  so  largely  en- 
gaged as  the  present  in  physical  pursuits,  they  must 
greatly  extend  their  walks  into  the  field  of  physical 
science."  A  hasty  reconnaissance  now  and  then  to 
gather  information  to  justify  an  attack  is  not  what 
is  wanted,  but  a  careful  and  impartial  examination 
of  the  scientific  domain,  and  its  relations  with  the 
religious  realm.  Even  "  from  men  who  admire  the 
progress  of  science,"  says  Prof.  Trowbridge,  "  I  often 
hear  sermons"  which  "do  incalculable  damage,  by 


28      PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

drawing  wide  and  unwarrantable  inferences  and  con- 
clusions from  scientific  facts." 

Equally  inadequate  is  the  acquaintance  of  men 
of  science  with  religion.  If  there  are  among  the 
clergy  parsons  so  impervious  to  modern  knowledge 
that  they  still  believe  that  the  earth  is  flat  and  im- 
movable, and  that  the  fossils  of  the  Silurian  period 
are  the  remains  of  creatures  drowned  in  the  Flood, 
there  are  likewise  those  who  claim  to  be  men  of 
science  who  are  so  ill-informed  and  undeveloped  in 
spiritual  things  as  to  doubt  the  usefulness  of  devo- 
tion, look  on  Christianity  as  a  work  of  fraud,  and 
religion  and  morality  as  mere  products  of  fear  and 
custom.  It  does  not  need  to  be  argued,  I  think, 
that  religion  is  not  a  thing  to  be  understood  at  a 
glance  by  every  one  who  is  not  a  born  fool.  Spirit- 
ual things  need  special,  systematic,  thorough  study  for 
their  clear  comprehension  just  as  much  as  physical 
things ;  and  the  man  of  science  who  essays,  because 
he  is  skillful  with  acids  and  alkalies,  or  has  made 
notable  discoveries  about  sound,  or  heat,  or  protozoa, 
to  pronounce  judgment  on  the  problems  of  prayer 
and  providence,  or  the  knowability  of  God,  such  a 
man  is  just  as  likely  to  talk  nonsense  as  the  minister 
who  denounces  Darwinism  without  having  read  a 
tithe  of  the  scientific  expositions  and  evidence  of  it. 
Yet  it  is  not  an  uncommon  occurrence,  of  late,  to 
see  men  of  science  indulge  in  such  intellectual  esca- 
pades. Dazzled  by  their  marvelous  achievements  in 
measuring  the  stellar  spaces  and  recovering  the  his- 


CAUSES   OF  ACTUAL  ANTAGONISM.  29 

tory  of  extinct  species,  physical  investigators  have 
fancied  that  Bacon  and  the  modern  instrument-mak- 
ers have  supplied  them  with  the  keys  of  universal 
knowledge,  and  with  unhesitating  confidence  have 
pronounced  from  their  scientific  platforms  just  what 
the  world  must  believe  about  divine  personality, 
goodness,  spiritual  existence,  and  such  other  pro- 
found problems  as  the  great  Christian  thinkers  have 
spent  their  lives  in  finding  and  expounding  the  best 
solutions  of.  It  is  not  strange  if  the  religious  world 
should  be  considerably  amazed,  and  somewrhat  in- 
dignant, at  the  crude  structures  which  have  resulted 
when  these  scientific  Babel-builders,  taking  atom  and 
molecule  for  their  onlv  architectural  materials,  have 
essayed  to  push  up  their  materialistic  towers  into 
the  very  heaven. 

Now,  this  ignorance  of  themselves  and  each  other 
has,  and  must,  as  long  as  it  lasts,  work  evil  to  both  re- 
ligion and  science.  Unacquainted  with  the  strength 
of  each  other's  positions,  they  are  prone  to  treat  each 
other  with  indifference  or  contempt.  Knowing  not 
their  own  proper  domain,  or  that  of  the  other,  they 
will  be  likely  to  encroach  upon  territory  that  is  not 
their  own,  or  consider  themselves  invaded  or  insult- 
ed without  cause.  The  sight  of  blunders  and  bun- 
gles committed  in  these  foreign  excursions,  tends  to 
destroy  their  authority  and  respect  for  their  knowl- 
edge in  their  own  home-province.  "  Nothing  leads 
thinking  young  men  of  scientific  tendencies,"  says 
Prof.  Trowbridge,  "to  neglect  church-going   more 


30      PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

than  wrong-headed  and  illogical  deductions  from 
science  by  their  pastors."  And,  similarly,  I  may 
add,  "  nothing  leads  Christians  to  dislike  and  ignore 
scientific  teaching  more  than  the  gross  misrepresen- 
tations of  pure  religion  too  often  given  by  scientific 
lecturers."  It  is  those  who  are  most  ignorant  of 
modern  investigations,  and  most  unfitted  by  their 
whole  education  to  discern  their  bearing,  who  most 
freely  launch  the  theological  thunder-bolts  at  them, 
as  impious  and  godless.  And  it  is  those  who  know 
least  of  the  essence  of  religion  and  the  grounds  on 
which  it  is  based,  who  sneer  at  them  as  old  wives' 
fables,  unworthy  the  serious  consideration  of  any 
savant.  Every  such  uncalled-for  attack  on  one  side 
or  the  other  widens  the  breach  between  them.  Could 
each  know  the  other  more  thoroughly,  most  of  this, 
I  believe,  might  be  escaped.  As  one  of  our  Ameri- 
can preachers  said  recently  in  an  address  to  medical 
students,1  "  If  the  clergy  could  ramble  with  Mr.  Hux- 
ley over  the  glaciers,  and  Mr.  Huxley  would  take  an 
excursion  into  the  fields  of  Christian  history,  we 
should  have  better  clerical  sermons  and  better  lay 
sermonsP 

Ignorance  of  themselves  and  each  other  is,  then, 
the  first  and  main  cause  of  that  antagonism  between 
science  and  religion  which,  though  it  can  have  no 
de  jure  reign,  has  yet  had  an  undeniable  de  facto 

1  Delivered  to  the  graduating  class  of  the  New  York  College  of 
Physicians  and  Surgeons,  18*75,  by  Rev.  E.  A.  Washburn,  D.  D. 


CAUSES   OF  ACTUAL  ANTAGONISM.  31 

existence.     From  this  main  cause  there  have  flowed 
two  subordinate  ones : 

1.  A  confounding  of  both  religion  and  science 
with  other  things. 

2.  The  claiming  by  each  of  exclusive  knowledge, 
and,  in  consequence  of  it,  a  supremacy  over  the 
other. 

These  must  be  examined  somewhat  in  detail. 

First,  ignorance  of  the  true  nature  of  religion 
and  science  has  led  to  confounding  them  with  other 
things.  All  science,  certainly,  does  not  deserve  the 
sneering  appellation  which  some  clergymen  are  fond 
of  employing — of  "  science  falsely  so  called."  But 
not  a  few  things  that  pass  for  science  have  no  real 
claim  to  the  title.  They  are  but  metaphysical  falla- 
cies, probable  hypotheses,  or  conjectures  spawned  in 
the  fertile  fancy  of  scientific  dabblers,  embraced  by 
anti-religious  prejudice,  and  wind-blown  by  conceit 
and  love  of  sensation  into  every  puddle  of  superfi 
cial  Nature-knowledge.1 

So  it  is  also  with  religion.  It  is  not  all  false- 
hood and  masquerade ;  nevertheless,  there  is  much, 
popularly  set  down  as  religion,  which  is  no  more 
religion  than  it  is  science.  Now  it  has  been  bound 
up  with  one  system,   now   with   another.     When 

1  "  There  is  a  great  deal  of  what  I  cannot  but  regard  as  fallacious 
and  misleading  philosophy  ('  oppositions  of  science  falsely  so  called ') 
abroad  in  the  world  at  the  present  day." — (Dr.  Carpenter's  Address 
at  Brighton,  in  1872,  as  President  of  the  British  Association  for  the 
Advancement  of  Science.) 


32      PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

Christianity  first  raised  its  head,  it  was  told  that 
polytheism  alone  was  religion.  When  Protestant- 
ism first  ventured  to  send  Christians  directly  and 
personally  to  the  Bible  and  their  own  private  judg- 
ment, religion,  it  was  declared,  meant  simply  the 
Roman  Church,  and  all  else  was  infidelity.  In  Au- 
gustine's day,  Christianity  was  made  inseparable 
from  the  doctrines  of  predestination  and  fatalism. 
In  Abelard's  time  it  was  bound  up  with  the  meta- 
physics of  realism  ;  in  Roger  Bacon's,  with  the 
philosophy  of  Aristotle ;  in  the  days  of  Yesalius, 
with  the  medical  treatises  of  Galen  ;  in  the  life- 
time of  Galileo,  with  the  astronomy  of  Ptolemy. 
To-day  it  is  the  orthodoxy  of  the  Council  of  Trent 
or  the  Westminster  Catechism  that  is  cemented  to 
religion,  and  any  attack  on  the  one  is  assumed  to 
be  undermining  the  very  foundations  of  faith  and 
morals. 

]STow,  it  is  this  false  science,  and  this  false  reli- 
gion— this  confounding  of  other  things,  different  in 
character,  with  these  two  great  factors  of  human 
welfare  (a  confusion  the  more  readily  occurring  be- 
cause of  the  sanction  that  both  the  scientific  and  the 
religious  worlds  have  given  to  it),  that  has  led  to  the 
belief  that  there  is  a  natural  antagonism  between 
physical  inquiry  and  spiritual  faith.  These  other 
powers  may  be  natural  opponents  to  Science,  or 
natural  opponents  to  Religion,  or  natural  oppo- 
nents to  each  other,  and,  walking  in  the  guise  of 
Science    and   Religion,   readily   give    the    appear- 


CAUSES   OF  ACTUAL  ANTAGONISM.  33 

ance  of  a  continual   and  rightful  conflict  between 
them. 

There  are  metaphysical  doctrines,  for  example, 
that  are  inimical  to  the  very  existence  of  religion  ; 
and  these  metaphysical  doctrines  may  happen  to  be 
adopted  by  certain  scientific  authorities,  become  cur- 
rent in  scientific  circles,  and  be  expounded  as  if  they 
were  scientific  truths.    Auguste  Comte,  for  instance, 
laid  it  down  as  the  characteristic  of  the  advance  of 
knowledge  from  the  Theological  and  Metaphysical 
stage  to  the  Positive  or  truly  Scientific  stage,  that  it 
should  be  recognized   that  only  phenomena,  their 
coexistences   and   sequences,  were   knowable  ;    and 
Causes,  especially  the  First  Cause,  beyond  the  pos- 
sibility of  our  knowledge.     Herbert  Spencer,  Prof. 
Tyndall,  Prof.  Huxley,  and  many  other  popular  sci- 
entific authorities  have,  again  and  again,  in  scientific 
lectures  and  treatises,  taken  occasion  to  lay  it  down 
as  one  of  the  fixed  things  which  the  physical  in- 
quirer should  recognize  and  respect,  that  the  Su- 
preme Eeality  is  utterly  unknowable.     Were  these, 
indeed,  truths  of  science,  then  Eeligion  would  have 
no  enemy  more  to   be  dreaded ;    for,  if  the  God 
whom  she  has  worshiped  and  prayed  to,  and  taken 
as  her  lawgiver,  and  believed  that  she  has  held  com- 
munion with,  is  absolutely  unknowable — then,  in- 
deed, no  place  is  left  for  her  on  the  earth.     Not 
"  worship,  mainly  of  the  silent  sort,"  as  Prof.  Hux- 
ley advises,  but  the  absolute  suppression  of  every 
worshiping  instinct  and  reverent  thought,  becomes 


34      PHYSICAL   AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

her.  But,  without  discussing  at  all  here  this  great 
question  of  the  knowability  of  God,  I  would  point 
out  what  hardly  ought  to  be  required  to  be  men- 
tioned, that  this  contest  lies  in  a  field  quite  outside 
of  the  beat  of  Science.  Science  can  declare  what  it 
has  found  and  does  know,  and  what  it  has  not  yet 
found  out  and  does  not  yet  know ;  but,  as  to  what 
it  is  possible  or  impossible  to  know,  as  to  what  are 
the  necessary  and  absolute  limits  of  the  human  mind 
— this  is  a  question  of  metaphysics,  not  of  science. 
The  whole  argument  proceeds  through  a  discussion, 
not  of  physical  things,  but  of  mental  and  spiritual — 
laws  of  thought,  analyses  of  consciousness,  contra- 
dictions of  logic.  It  is  a  question  in  which  all  the 
chief  arguments,  pro  and  con,  were  elaborated  before 
modern  Science  was  born.  If  scientific  authorities 
chose  to  borrow  or  reiterate  what  Lao-Tse,  Kant, 
Hamilton,  or  Mansel,  have  argued,  that  does  not 
transform  the  old  metaphysics  into  modern  science, 
but  simply  exhibits  modern  scientists  as  amateur 
metaphysicians. 

Again,  there  are  speculations  and  theories  op- 
posed to  religion,  which  are  often  indulged  in  by 
scientific  men,  and  passed  off  for  genuine  science. 
Such,  for  example,  is  the  bald  materialism  that 
would  make  matter  the  sum  and  substance  of  all 
things;  self-existent  and  alone  immortal;  life,  its 
complex  product ;  thought,  a  motion  of  it ;  will, 
the  direction  of  its  current.  Such  is  the  scientific 
naturalism,    still   more  prevalent,  perhaps,  among 


CAUSES   OF  ACTUAL  ANTAGONISM.  35 

physical  inquirers,  in  which  the  uniformity  per- 
ceived within  the  narrow  field  of  human  observa- 
tion is  set  up  as  an  absolute  necessity  ;  succession  of 
phenomena  is  made  the  only  reality ;  its  chain  of 
antecedents  the  only  origin;  and  its  law  the  only 
God.  These  theories  may  have  a  ^wm'-scientific  ba- 
sis; they  may  be  advocated  by  students,  teachers, 
and  writers  of  the  scientific  world ;  but,  nevertheless, 
they  have  no  claim  to  call  themselves  science ;  they 
have  never  been  accepted  by  a  majority  of  the  scien- 
tific world  ;  no  proper  and  sufficient  scientific  author- 
ity, data,  or  reasoning,  indorses  them ;  no  scientific 
verification  of  them  is  possible.  Their  dogmas,  as- 
suming for  matter  eternal  and  exclusive  existence; 
asserting  for  our  narrow  experience  universality  and 
necessity  ;  claiming,  in  regard  to  phenomena,  a 
knowledge  that  there  is  nothing  more  behind  it 
than  is  seen  on  its  surface;  denying  altogether  finite 
or  infinite  spirit ;  repudiating  the  intuitions  of 
cause  and  substance — transcend  altogether  the  ex- 
perimental conditions  which  these  same  schools 
make  the  limit  of  knowledge  and  the  criterion  of 
truth.  Inductive  Science  would  have  to  renounce 
its  functions,  and  assume  quite  a  different  role,  be- 
fore it  could  legitimately  make  any  such  declara- 
tions. As  Dr.  Carpenter  said  at  Brighton,  in  1872, 
in  his  address  to  the  British  Association  for  the  Ad- 
vancement of  Science,  "  Those  who  set  up  their  own 
conceptions  of  the  orderly  sequence  which  they  dis- 
cern in  the  phenomena  of  Nature  as  fixed  and  deter- 


36      PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

mined  laws,  by  which  those  phenomena  not  only 
are  (within  all  human  experience),  bnt  always  have 
been,  and  always  must  be,  invariably  governed,  are 
really  guilty  of  the  intellectual  arrogance  which 
they  condemn  in  the  systems  of  the  ancients,  and 
place  themselves  in  diametrical  antagonism  to  those 
real  philosophers  by  whose  comprehensive  grasp 
and  penetrating  insight  that  order  has  been  so  far 
disclosed."  And  again,  toward  the  close  of  his  ad- 
dress: "When  Science,  passing  beyond  its  own  lim- 
its, assumes  to  take  the  place  of  Theology,  and  sets 
up  its  own  conception  of  the  order  of  Nature  as  a 
sufficient  account  of  its  cause,  it  is  invading  a  prov- 
ince of  thought  to  which  it  has  no  claim,  and  not 
unreasonably  provokes  the  hostility  of  those  who 
ought  to  be  its  best  friends." 

Or,  to  pass  to  the  things  that,  in  the  name  of  re- 
ligion, have  opposed  science  :  ecclesiastical  hierar- 
chies have  always  been,  and  almost  inevitably  are, 
hostile  to  its  progress.  They  are  opposed  to  all  prog- 
ress. Their  one  great  thought  is,  to  preserve  their 
privileges,  to  maintain  and  heighten  their  authority. 
When  a  religious  movement  grows  into  a  church,  it 
is  as  when  the  young  polyp  grows  into  the  coral. 
At  first  tiny,  soft-bodied,  changeable,  ranging  at 
will,  as  it  increases  in  size  it  loses  its  freedom  and 
pliancy,  attaches  itself  to  some  rock,  becomes  im- 
movable, solid,  itself  a  part  of  the  rock.  To  new 
ideas  it  can  henceforth  give,  at  best,  only  a  stolid 
apathy,  a  stony  rebuff.     Fortunate  is  the  issue  if  it 


CAUSES  OF  ACTUAL  ANTAGONISM.  37 

does  not  heave  its  ponderous  weight  upon  the  rash  dis- 
turber of  its  peace,  and  crush  him  to  powder.  Alas ! 
how  many  tragic  instances  of  this  are  written  in  blood 
and  tire  upon  the  pages  of  church  history!  Colum- 
bus, overwhelmed  bv  the  theologians  at  Salamanca 
with  biblical  proof  against  a  new  world  ;  Kopernik, 
suppressing  his  heliocentric  theory  of  the  heavens 
for  thirty-six  years,  and  escaping  persecution  only 
by  death  ;  Galileo,  tortured  and  compelled  to  recant 
his  declaration  that  the  earth  moves ;  Giordano  Bru- 
no, burnt  alive  for  daring  to  assert  a  plurality  of 
worlds — such  are  the  disgraceful  illustrations  of  the 
enmity  of  the  Roman  hierarchy  to  the  progress  of 
physical  knowledge.  But  do  any  of  these  facts  show 
a  conflict  between  Religion  and  Science  ?  Not  one 
of  them.  Neither  the  Roman  Church  nor  any  other 
church  is  identical  with  religion.  No  ecclesiastical 
body  is  synonymous  with  religion.  All  such  bodies 
are  structures  of  men,  social  institutions.  Religion 
is  no  human  construction,  any  more  than  the  force 
of  gravitation,  or  the  vital  force,  or  the  yearnings 
of  the  loving  heart.  It  is  a  force  anterior  to  all 
churches  and  hierarchies,  the  grand  spiritual  stream 
flowing  from  above  through  the  souls  of  men,  of 
which  ecclesiastical  organizations  are  but  the  earth- 
ly banks,  the  clayey  reservoirs  and  wooden  dams 
by  which  men  have  thought  they  could  better  util- 
ize the  heavenly  forces.  Doubtless  religion  is  in 
the  Church,  and  the  Church  more  or  less  representa- 
tive of  religion ;  but  by  no  means  so  exclusively  and 


38      PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

purely  is  the  Church  filled  and  moved  by  religion, 
that  the  voice  of  the  latter  may  be  taken  as  the  voice 
of  the  former.  Besides  religion,  the  Church  has  al- 
ways contained,  and  still  contains,  much  else — tradi- 
tion, prejudice,  love  of  power,  superstition.  The 
clamor  of  these  often  confuses  and  drowns  the  still, 
small  voice  of  religion. 

Again,  theological  dogmas  and  science  have  been, 
and  still  are,  opposed.  Theologians  have  formulated 
their  dim  guesses  about  God's  character  and  ways 
into  creeds,  and  imagined  them  finalities.  They 
have  speculated  upon  matters  of  purely  physical 
knowledge,  such  as  the  antiquity  of  the  earth  and 
the  age  of  man,  the  condition  of  the  primitive  globe 
and  its  inhabitants,  the  manner  and  method  of  their 
appearings,  and  have  made  these  speculations  into 
dogmas  held  as  essential  to  religion.  Thus,  holding 
sway  beforehand,  by  right  of  what  might  be  called 
squatter  sovereignty,  over  a  large  part  of  the  field 
of  scientific  inquiry,  and  having  consecrated  as  sa- 
cred edifices  the  rude  and  hasty  structures  raised 
by  its  early  conjectures,  when  Science  advances  to 
take  possession  of  its  own,  there  results  naturally  a 
conflict.  The  different  stand-points  from  which  Sci- 
ence observes,  the  more  thorough  examination  which 
it  is  its  aim  to  make,  give  a  more  or  less  different 
representation  of  truth.  Science  must  clear  the 
ground  of  what  it  deems  erroneous  mental  construc- 
tions before  it  can  erect  the  systems  which  it  believes 
to  be  truer.    And  Theology  has  become  so  convinced 


CAUSES   OF  ACTUAL  ANTAGONISM.  39 

of  the  divine  accuracy  of  its  own  models  of  the  Cre- 
ator and  the  creation,  that  if  the  old  lines  be  altered 
ever  so  little,  if  new  elements  be  suggested  as  con- 
stituting the  constructive  material,  or  an  architect- 
ural power,  different  from  that  which  the  ancient 
guide-books  narrate,  be  hinted  at  as  the  method  by 
which  it  was  built,  or  if  even  one  of  the  withered 
ivies  that  had  darkened  its  windows  be  pulled  away, 
then  it  seems  to  Theology  as  if  desecration  had  been 
committed,  the  creation  robbed  of  its  divineness, 
and  the  Creator  banished  into  nonentity. 

All  theologies  are  liable  thus  to  get  in  the  way  of 
Science ;  but  in  current  Christian  theology  there  are 
two  dogmas  in  particular  that  have  especially  created 
antagonism.  The  first  is  the  assumed  infallible  inspi- 
ration of  the  whole  Bible ;  the  second  the  assumed 
intervention  of  God  in  the  order  of  Nature,  or  the 
special  presence  of  Deity  in  that  which  is  mysteri- 
ous, exceptional,  or  lawless.  In  consequence  of  the 
first  of  these  dogmas,  there  has  been  a  struggle  by 
theologians  to  limit  modern  science  to  the  contract- 
ed circle  of  the  ancient  Hebrew  knowledge  of  the 
universe,  and  any  variation  of  statement  from  the 
letter  of  Moses  or  Job,  David  or  Paul,  is  regarded 
as  a  dangerous  loosening  of  another  screw  in  the 
bonds  of  righteousness  and  the  evidences  of  immor- 
tality. 

In  consequence  of  the  second  dogma,  theologians 
have  been  jealous  of  any  attempt  at  a  natural  ex- 
planation of  the  mysteries  of  the  world,  and  have 


4-0      PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

looked  upon  every  extension  of  the  realm  of  un- 
broken order  and  second  causes  as  an  invasion  by 
Science  of  the  religious  kingdom.  They  imagine 
that  one  must  lose  whatever  the  other  gains ;  that, 
step  by  step,  as  the  arcana  of  the  Kosmos  are  pene 
trated,  and  the  same  laws  and  substances  are  found 
ruling  and  constituting  these,  as  rule  and  constitute 
the  more  familiar  parts  and  operations  of  Nature, 
the  action  and  presence  of  Deity  must  be  denied, 
and  the  human  mind  landed  more  and  more  in  the 
slough  of  a  godless  materialism. 

But  these  also  are  antagonisms  which  faith  is  not 
responsible  for,  and  which  Theism  does  not  com- 
mand. These  are  quarrels  in  which  pure  and  unde- 
filed  Religion  is  never  present  as  a  combatant.  The- 
ology is  not  religion,  but  the  theoretical  system  men 
erect  over  and  about  religion.  "  The  aspiring  song  of 
the  spirit  is  one  thing,  the  attempt  to  write  its  score, 
define  its  nature  and  explain  its  methods  and  its  sig- 
nificance, quite  another  thing."  There  are  many  the- 
ologies, and  each  theology  has  many  dogmas.  Reli- 
gion is  an  essence  which  was  before  all,  which  gave 
to  all  their  original  life,  but  remains  identical  with 
none.  Least  of  all  is  it  to  be  identified  with  a  dogma 
that  divorces  ordinary  Nature  from  God,  confines 
his  working  to  the  dark  corners  of  his  creation,  and 
recognizes  him  only  where  some  overthrowal  or  in- 
terruption of  his  previous  or  customary  work  is  sup- 
posed to  be  discovered.  It  is  not  only  an  equally 
religious  view,  but  a  far   more  religious  view,  it 


CAUSES   OF  ACTUAL  ANTAGONISM.  41 

seems  to  me,  that  sees  God  present  in  every  ordi- 
nary occurrence  and  lowest  substance,  pouring  his 
will  through  the  channels  of  unvaried  law,  and 
binding  antecedent  to  consequent  in  an  unnawed 
succession. 

Neither  is  religion  based  on  nor  bound  up  with 
any  one  book.  Had  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  no 
religion,  because  Moses  had  not  yet  written?  Was 
there  no  Christianity  in  the  lifetime  of  Jesus,  or 
the  first  forty  years  of  the  apostolic  generation,  be- 
fore Matthew  put  his  pen  on  to  parchment?  As 
well  say  that  chemical  affinity  is  based  on  Lavoisier's 
or  Dalton's  treatises,  or  that  gravitation  is  ruined  if 
Xewton's  "Principia"  is  shown  false  in  a  single  the- 
orem. Religion  is  the  root  from  which  what  is  di- 
vine and  spiritual  in  Old  and  ISew  Testament  has 
blossomed.  But  the  manifold  other  growths,  of  his- 
tory, poetry,  allegory,  chronology,  cosmogony,  which 
pious  reverence  bound  up  in  the  same  venerated 
chaplet,  must  not  be  confounded  with  the  grand 
moral  and  religious  truths  that  have  given  the  an- 
cient Semitic  writings  an  incomparable  place  in  sa- 
cred literature.  "  Physical  and  metaphysical  sci- 
ence," to  quote  the  Dean  of  Canterbury  again,1 
"  alike  lie  remote  from  the  object-matter  of  revela- 
tion. Because  God  has  in  the  Bible  given  us  reve 
lation  in  an  informal  way,  in  order,  perhaps,  to  com- 

1  "  Science  and  Revelation,"  by  R.  Payne  Smith,  D.  D.,  Dean  of 
Canterbury,  Late  Regius  Professor  of  Divinity,  Oxford.  "Modern 
Skepticism,"  "  Lectures  of  the  Christian  Evidence  Society,"  p.  173. 


42      PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

mend  it  to  our  entire  nature,  people  often  forget 
that  its  proper  object-matter  is  simply  the  moral  re- 
lation in  which  man  stands  to  God,  especially  with 
relation  to  a  future  state  of  being.  Religious  men 
forget  this.  They  often  take  up  an  antagonistic 
position  to  science,  and  try  to  make  out  systems  of 
geology,  and  astronomy,  and  anthropology,  from  the 
Bible,  and  from  these  judge  all  that  scientific  men 
say.  Really,  the  Bible  never  gives  us  any  scientific 
knowledge  in  a  scientific  way.  If  it  did,  it  would 
be  leaving  its  own  proper  domain." 

In  fine,  to  come  to  the  secret  of  the  dissension, 
new  kinds  of  knowledge,  or  unusual  theories  of  any 
kind,  naturally  find  themselves  opposed  by  the  old 
beliefs — whatever  be  their  nature — which  occupied 
the  ground  before  them.  The  old  is  unwilling  to 
give  up  its  time-honored  reign.  The  new  wants  to 
push  out  the  old,  to  obtain  more  room  for  itself. 
Now,  what  is  old,  whether  it  be  really  ancient  phi- 
losophy, ancient  custom,1  ancient  myth,  or  ancient 

1  Euripides,  for  example,  puts  the  following  into  the  mouth  of 
Greek  orthodoxy :  "  The  divine  might  is  slow  to  come  forth,  but  sure 
nevertheless ;  and  it  chastises  those  mortals  who  foster  insensate  ob- 
stinacy, who  from  mad  opinion  refuse  to  exalt  the  institutions  of  the 
gods.  Subtly  and  perseveringly  do  they  hide  their  feet  in  ambush 
and  catch  the  impious  man.  For  never  should  we  indulge  convic- 
tions and  meditations  which  are  wiser  than  established  practices. 
For  cheap  is  the  effort  to  believe  that  the  Divinity,  whatever  else  he 
may  be,  is  not  powerful ;  and  what  comes  from  long  time  is  estab- 
lished eternally,  and  inheres  in  Nature." — (Euripides,  Larch.,  882- 
896.)  The  impiety  here  rebuked  consisted  in  disapproving  of  Bac- 
chanalian orgies ! 


VA.U8E8  OF  ACTUAL  ANTAGONISM.  43 

physical  speculation,  or  any  thing  else  no  more  iden- 
cal  with  religion,  has  always  been  apt  to  lay  claim 
to  a  sacred  character.     And  what  is  new,  whether  it 
be,  in  fact,  new  metaphysics,  new  religion,  or  new 
speculation  of  any  kind,  is  in  these  days  equally  apt 
to  dub  itself  by  the  title  of  Science.     But  surely  the 
old,  merely  as  old,  is  no  more  to  be  identified  with 
religion  than  the  new.      Though  tradition  may  al- 
ways claim  Religion  as  her  champion,  Religion  is  not 
therefore  responsible  for  Tradition's  acts.    Scientific 
men,  as  well  as  priests  and  churches,  have  sought  to 
bolster  themselves  by  appeals  to  the  odium  theologi- 
cum.    Even  the  illustrious  Leibnitz  charged  the  sys- 
tem of  Newton  with  having  an  irreligious  tendency. 
And  Religion,  when  new,  is  as  apt  as  Science  to  be 
accused  of  impiety.     If  any  body  of  men  were  ever 
filled  with  the  thought  of   God,   surely  the  early 
Christians  were ;  and  yet,  one  of  the  charges  which 
the  Roman  polytheists  brought  against  them  was 
that  of  atheism.     It  is  not  religion,  then,  but  tradi 
tion,  that  opposes  the  new ;  and  it  is  not  the  new 
any  more  than  the  old  that  is  the  scientific.     If  all 
uncommon  theories  and  recent-born  speculations  be 
science,  how  many  scientific  carcasses  line  the  path 
of  history ! 


44      PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 


CHAPTER  in. 

THE  CLAIM  OF  .RELIGION  TO  POSSESS  EXCLUSIVE  KNOWL- 
EDGE AND  CONSEQUENT  DIVINE  SUPREMACY. HU- 
MAN   CONDITIONS    OF    RELIGION. DTVINE   ORIGIN   OF 

SCIENCE. HELP    RECEIVED  BY   RELIGION  FROM   SCI- 
ENCE. 

Secondly,  there  are  the  claims  made  by  both 
Science  and  Religion  of  exclusive  knowledge,  and.  as 
a  result  of  this,  a  rightful  supremacy  over  the  other. 

I  take  up  first  the  claim  of  Religion.  It  is  one 
of  the  most  ancient  claims  of  Religion  that  to  her 
has  been  given  truth  in  its  absolute  purity,  direct 
from  Heaven.  Scientific  investigations  are  but  blind 
human  gropings.  There  is  nothing  divine  or  heaven- 
descended  in  them.  But  religion  is  a  revelation 
from  the  Creator  himself,  conveying  absolute  and 
final  truth.  No  human  admixture  alloys  its  cer 
tainty;  no  sense-experience  nor  logical  demonstra- 
tions are  needed  to  make  it  credible ;  no  further 
principles  are  to  be  sought  for.  God  has  unveiled 
to  man  in  advance  all  the  information  about  spiritual 
things  which  it  is  essential  for  him  to  have.  For 
the  human  understanding  to  pick  and  dig   about 


THE  CLAIM  OF  RELIGION.  ±$ 

these  foundations  is  either  superfluous  or  injurious. 
If  its  investigations  agree  with  the  divine  revela- 
tion, they  are  but  a  waste  of  energy.  If  they  dis- 
agree, they  are  beyond  doubt  mischievous  mislead- 
ings.  Religious  truths  are  not  like  scientific  truths. 
Spiritual  phenomena  are  not  like  material  phenom- 
ena. They  are  to  be  gazed  at  reverently,  not  searched 
into  with  microscope  and  dissected  with  lancet. 
They  should  be  accepted  in  faith,  not  criticised  by 
impious  reason.  Of  eternal  and  infinite  importance, 
as  they  are,  what  is  man  that  he  should  set  himself 
up  as  their  judge?  "In  the  things  of  God,"  Mr. 
Mansel  tells  us  to-day,  as  Augustine,  and  Aquinas, 
and  Calvin,  and  Edwards,  and  the  great  Church  au- 
thorities in  every  century,  have  told  the  world,  "  Rea- 
son is  beyond  her  depth,  and  we  must  accept  what 
is  established,  or  we  must  believe  nothing." 

Almost  every  branch  of  the  Church  claims  more 
or  less  of  this  exclusive  knowledge.  Each  has  some 
oracle  whose  voice  must  be  accepted  as  authoritative, 
and  whose  message  as  divine  truth,  unmixed  with 
the  dross  of  common  human  knowledge,  needing 
not  that  examination  and  verification  which  other 
kinds  of  truth  require  before  it  is  worthy  to  claim 
man's  credence. 

At  its  lowest  term,  this  oracle  is  merely  the 
spiritual  intuition,  the  voice  within  the  breast.  In 
its  next  higher  form,  it  is  the  word  of  the  religious 
master ;  in  Islam,  of  Mohammed ;  in  Buddhism,  of 
Sakya-Mouni ;  in  Christianity,  of  Jesus.    At  a  third 


£6      PHYSICAL   AXD  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

stage,  it  presents  as  infallible  every  verse  of  some 
sacred  book — Yeda,  Koran,  Bible.  At  its  highest 
term,  the  Church,  or,  perhaps,  its  official  head,  High- 
priest,  Grand-Llama,  Mikado,  or  Pope,  becomes  the 
vicegerent  of  God,  and  the  exclusive  declarer  of 
divine  truth. 

Believing  that  in  herself  she  has  thus  a  special, 
direct,  and  unerring  source  of  divine  knowledge,  Re- 
ligion naturally  is  disinclined  to  admit  the  possibility 
that  she  has  made  mistakes,  or  that  Science  is  com- 
petent to  correct  her,  or  to  find  out  religious  truths 
undiscovered  by  her.  The  investigations  of  Science 
are  very  well  as  long  as  they  confirm  the  Scriptures, 
and  sustain  the  Church  ;  but  to  stray  from  the  ortho- 
dox pathway,  to  criticise  or  contradict  what  Penta- 
teuch or  Papal  College  has  laid  down,  is  a  sacrilege. 
Evangelical  Protestantism,  by  instance  after  instance, 
has  disclosed  its  unwillingness  to  allow  to  Science 
any  other  position  than  that  of  a  subordinate  and  a 
satellite  ;  and  the  Roman  Church  has  explicitly  and 
officially  declared  the  absolute  supremeness  of  the 
Church  in  all  such  matters,  and  the  wickedness  of 
looking  upon  Science  as  capable  of  correcting  the 
interpretations  of  the  Church.  In  the  General  Coun- 
cil of  the  Roman  Church,  held  in  1870,  known  as 
the  Vatican  Council,  it  was  denned  to  be  "  a  doc- 
trine divinely  revealed,  that  when  the  Roman 
Pontiff  speaks  ex  cathedra  ....  he  possesses  that  in- 
fallibility with  which  the  Divine  Rdeeemer  willed 
his  Church  to  be  endowed.  .  .  .  The  pastors  and 


THE  CLAIM  OF  RELIGION.  47 

faithful,  of  whatever  rite  and  dignity,  are  bound  by 
the  duty  of  hierarchical  subordination  and  true  obe- 
dience "  in  reference  to  doctrines  thus  defined  by 
the  pope.  And  in  regard  to  human  science,  in  par- 
ticular, the  position  previously  taken  by  the  Papal 
See  was  ratified  by  the  formal  decree : 

"  Let  him  be  anathema — 

"Who  shall  say  that  human  sciences  ought  to 
be  pursued  in  such  a  spirit  of  freedom  that  one 
may  be  allowed  to  hold  as  true  their  assertions  even 
when  opposed  to  revealed  doctrines ; 

"  Who  shall  say  that  it  may  at  any  time  come  to 
pass  in  the  progress  of  science  that  the  doctrines  set 
forth  by  the  Church  must  be  set  forth  in  another 
sense  than  that  in  which  the  Church  has  ever  re- 
ceived and  yet  receives  them." 

Language  such  as  this  makes  it  plain  that,  what- 
ever be  the  tendency  in  the  more  liberal  Protestant 
communions,  the  Roman  Church  has  no  thought  of 
abandoning  the  theories  of  human  and  cosmic  origin 
which  it  has  planted  itself  on  in  times  past,  or  en- 
couraging any  study  which  would  naturally  or  prob- 
ably lead  to  doubt  of  the  authority  of  the  Church 
which  has  enunciated  them. 

Ancient  and  common  as  is  this  claim  of  Religion, 
I  believe  it  to  be  erroneous.  It  cannot  stand  before 
thorough  criticism  and  sound  logic.  Religion  has 
no  exclusive  source  of  information,  but  such  sources 
only  as  are  common  to  all  branches  of  human  knowl- 
edge.    Every  oracle  that  has  ever  been  set  up  in  the 


43     PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

Church,  as  the  voice  of  the  Divine,  has  had  and  still 
has  its  human  conditions  and  vehicles.  I  would  not 
deny  the  great  fact  of  revelation,  proceeding  from 
God,  for  the  enlightenment  of  man.  We  come  to 
perceive  religious  truth — yes,  and  secular  truth  also, 
I  rejoice  to  believe — not  merely  by  our  own  unaided 
efforts,  but  by  the  help  of  the  divine  illumination 
constantly  vouchsafed  to  the  earnest  seeker  after 
truth. 

But,  living  in  the  world  in  which  we  do,  within 
the  material  organisms  in  which  our  spiritual  na- 
tures are  embodied,  possessed  of  no  other  knowing 
faculties  than  these  finite  ones  of  ours,  how  is  it 
possible  for  us  to  receive  divine  truth  in  its  absolute 
fullness  and  purity  ?  How  can  man  either  appre- 
hend it,  or  interpret  it,  or  know  it  as  divine,  without 
the  revelation  becoming  subject  to  those  finite  limi- 
tations which  are  the  conditions  of  human  thought  ? 

However  undoubtedly  and  exclusively  a  revela- 
tion may  have  had  its  beginning  with  God,  how  can 
it  reach  man's  consciousness  except  through  the  sen- 
sitive and  rational  avenues  of  the  organism  in  which 
God  has  set  man's  soul  ?  And  these  perceptive  ave- 
nues will  inevitably  give  shape  to  the  message  that 
passes  through  them.  These  mental  windows  will 
tint  with  the  color  of  their  own  glass  whatever  light 
streams  through  them. 

The  pint  pot  cannot  hold  a  quart.  The  earthy 
soul  cannot  take  in  the  spiritual  conception.  Love, 
aspiration,  self-sacrifice,  divine   communion — these 


THE   CLAIM  OF  RELIGION.  49 

are  but  sounds  without  sense  to  the  carnal  mind. 
Though  Jehovah  speak  in  clearest  tones  the  law  of 
righteousness  from  Sinai's  summit  over  the  Hebrew 
host,  what  is  it  to  the  flocks  and  herds  ?  what  is  it 
to  the  mixed  multitude  whose  mouths  are  watering 
for  the  flesh-pots  of  Egypt  ?  Only  so  much  thick 
cloud  round  about,  and  the  sound  of  thunder  and 
the  blare  of  a  great  trumpet.  Only  to  Aaron  and 
Moses  comes  intelligible  meaning.  Verbal  commu- 
nications, holding  however  lofty  spiritual  truth,  are 
but  jangling  noises  to  a  man  unless  some  correspond- 
ing idea  exists  already  in  the  man's  mind  which  may 
welcome  the  message  and  make  plain  its  significa- 
tion. They  will  either  be  rejected  as  meaningless, 
or  drawn  down  from  their  noble  height  to  some 
lower  level  on  which  they  can  be  grasped. 

It  has  been  said  that,  if  a  Polynesian  cannibal 
was  told  that  he  ought  to  love  his  enemies,  he  would 
answer,  "  Yes,  we  do — both  roasted  and  broiled  ! ' 
There  are  authentic  anecdotes  showing  equally  de- 
graded transformations  of  religious  conceptions  when 
introduced  to  savage  minds.  When  Burton  spoke 
to  the  Eastern  negroes  about  the  Deity,  they  eagerly 
asked  where  he  was  to  be  found,  that  they  might  kill 
him,  for,  they  said,  "  who  but  he  lays  waste  our 
homes,  and  kills  our  wives  and  cattle  %  " 

"  "Why  did  you  baptize  that  Iroquois  1 "  asked  a 
Huron  Christian  of  a  missionary.  "  If  he  gets  to 
heaven  before  us  Hurons,  he  will  scalp  us  and  turn 
us  out." 

3 


50      PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

The  sun  sends  forth  his  radiant  beams  as  pure 
white  light.  The  full  luminous  stream  bathes  im- 
partially the  whole  earth.  It  comes  to  rock,  to 
flower,  to  element,  absolutely  the  same.  But  with 
each  it  becomes  something  quite  different ;  for  each 
untwists  the  woven  raj,  and  selects  from  it  a  diverse 
hue,  according  to  its  own  inward  affinities.  The 
atmosphere  picks  out  its  blue;  the  leaves  draw 
to  themselves  the  emerald ;  the  iris  chooses  the 
purple ;  the  buttercup  paints  itself  with  the  yel- 
low ;  the  cardinal-flower  sucks  its  cells  full  of  the 
scarlet.  So  it  is  with  the  illumination  that  the  soul 
receives  from  the  Sun  of  Righteousness.  There  is 
one  and  the  same  light,  but  what  is  received  from  it 
varies  according  to  the  capacity  of  the  recipient. 
As  the  largeness  of  soul  in  the  man,  and  the  gener- 
ousness  with  which  the  soul's  doors  are  opened,  vary, 
so  do  the  measure  of  inspiration  and  the  character 
of  the  revelation.  Each  man's  God  takes  its  figure 
and  dimensions  from  the  ideal  of  his  own  sense  of 
justice,  or  truth,  or  love.  It  is  the  image  of  him- 
self projected  on  the  screen  of  the  Infinite.  To  sav- 
age tribes,  Deity  is  but  a  mightier  warrior ;  to  over- 
burdened, enervated  races,  the  unspeakable  peace 
of  a  Nirvana ;  to  the  oppressed  and  down-trodden, 
he  is  the  righteous  avenger  and  judge  ;  to  the  ten- 
der and  loving,  he  discloses  himself  as  the  pitying, 
ever-caring  Father. 

In  coining  even  to  the  first  earthly  recipient, 
then,  revelation  must  take  on  human  phases  and 


THE  CLAIM  OF  RELIGION.  51 

become  subject  to  finite  limits.  And  if  from  the 
first  recipient  it  is  carried  abroad  over  the  world, 
and  down  through  generations,  it  must  subject  itself 
still  more  to  human  conditions  and  uncertainties. 
Traveling  from  man  to  man,  it  subjects  itself  to  the 
errors  attendant  on  verbal  or  written  communica- 
tion. Proceeding  from  nation  to  nation,  it  becomes 
liable  to  the  distortions  attendant  on  translation  from 
the  tongue  of  one  into  that  of  the  other.  Passing 
from  a  personal,  inward  feeling  or  thought  into 
the  external  symbols  or  speech  that  may  communi- 
cate to  others  the  truth  felt  within,  it  is  exposed  to 
the  imperfections  of  language  and  to  the  errors  of 
interpretation.  There  is  no  system  of  speech  or 
written  signs  that  can  more  than  very  inadequately 
represent  the  delicate  shadings  of  our  mental  con 
ceptions.  There  is  no  arrangement  of  material 
symbols,  whether  of  letters  or  of  sounds,  that  can 
more  than  very  coarsely  image  the  subtile  qualities 
and  delicate  character  of  spiritual  things.  While 
the  Divine  thought,  which  is  the  source  of  revela- 
tion, is,  of  course,  infallible,  yet  how  can  it  find  any 
infallible  form  of  words  in  which  to  clothe  itself  ? 
And  if  in  the  past  this  has  happened,  yet,  when 
the  usages  of  language  change  from  generation  to 
generation  so  greatly  and  rapidly  as  they  do,  where 
shall  we  find  an  infallible  interpreter  to  tell  us  their 
exact  meaning  to-day  %  Or,  if  one  be  found,  who 
shall  infallibly  interpret  for  us  his  explanations? 
We  must  fall  back  on  our  own  fallible  understand- 


52      PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

ings  at  last,  for  the  sense  of  whatever  revelation  or 
interpretation  is  given  to  ns. 

Again,  how  are  we  to  know  that  what  comes  to 
us  claiming  to  be  a  revelation  is  really  one  ?  Here, 
again,  the  only  judge  is  the  fallible  human  conclu- 
sion of  our  own  reason.  "  It  must  be  plain,"  as  has 
well  been  said,  "  that  as  far  as  revelation  contains 
any  truth  that  asks  mental  assent,  it  must  appeal  to 
the  mental  faculty.  No  one  denies  this,  unless  he 
masks  clear  sense  under  some  mental  sophism."  The 
lofty  claim  made  when  a  divine  revelation  is  asserted 
does  not  thereby  free  the  claim  from  the  possibility 
of  dishonesty  or  error,  but  makes  it  all  the  more  im- 
portant to  determine  whether  the  claim  be  a  true 
one,  or  the  pretended  revelation  be  only  some  mis- 
take, or  delusion,  or  trick  of  priest  or  lying  spirit. 
Were  there  but  a  single  claim  made  of  such  a  kind, 
still,  faith  would  not  be  exempt  from  the  duty  of 
examination  and  verification.  But  when,  as  is  the 
case,  numerous  conflicting  claims  are  made ;  when 
Buddhism,  Mohammedanism,  Christianity,  each 
brings  forward  that  divine  revelation,  it  becomes  an 
absolute  necessity  for  faith  to  discriminate  what  it 
deems  the  false  revelations  from  what  it  deems  the 
true  revelation.  And,  in  doing  this,  it  must  take 
guidance  from  its  natural  presuppositions,  its  own 
sense  of  the  right  and  the  true,  its  own  experience 
of  the  good. 

A  man  may  suspend  his  reason  in  obedience  to 
the  authority  of  a  church.    But,  in  order  to  come  to 


THE  CLAIM  OF  RELIGION.  53 

take  such  a  step,  he  must  first  employ  that  reason  to 
bring  him  to  a  belief  in  the  duty  of  so  doing,  and  to 
select  the  church  that  rightly,  in  his  opinion,  possesses 
such  a  claim.  John  Henry  Newman,  it  is  said,  de- 
clares that  "  the  true  Catholic  is  not  he  who  be- 
lieves in  the  Church  because  it  is  right,  but  he  who 
submits  implicitly  to  it  without  presuming  to  ask 
such  a  question."  Nevertheless,  how  can  even  the 
Romanist  have  intelligently  come  to  the  decision 
that  he  ought  to  surrender  his  reason  to  the  Church, 
unless  by  persuading  himself  that  history  and  expe- 
rience show  the  claim  to  be  a  reasonable  one  % 

Either  Faith  adopts  its  authority  unreasonably, 
unintelligently,  by  the  mere  accident  of  birth,  or 
circumstance,  or  caprice,  or  else  she  must  have  some 
reason  for  her  choice ;  must  have  sought,  that  is, 
the  arbitership  of  human  understanding,  and  found 
that  approving  of  the  claim  preferred.  A  revelation 
which  would  not  allow  of  such  a  confirmation,  by 
the  prepossessions  of  our  reason,  no  thinking  man 
can  accept  as  divine.  Even  the  man  to  whom  im- 
mediately the  knowledge  of  a  divine  truth  is  im- 
parted could  have  no  faith  in  it  without  such  a  rati- 
fication of  it  by  his  own  sense  of  truth. 

Suppose,  for  example,  that  to-day  a  spirit  de- 
scended from  heaven  and  revealed  personally  to  us 
that  the  Ruler  and  Creator  of  the  universe  is  a  man 
of  flesh  and  blood  and  stature,  as  ourselves,  or  a 
six-armed,  eagle-headed  being,  such  as  Hindoo  idols 
represent  him ;  or  suppose  this  messenger  from  the 


54     PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

other  world  should  bring  us,  as  a  message  from  God, 
some  farrago  of  nonsense,  some  plain  contradiction 
of  our  moral  and  religious  principles,  what  intelli- 
gent man  would  put  the  slightest  faith  in  it  ?  Who 
would  not  say  that  either  it  was  an  hallucination  of 
our  sense,  a  deceit  of  some  trickster,  or  if,  indeed,  a 
spirit-messenger,  then,  a  messenger  from  the  pit,  not 
from  the  heavens. 

Do  you  say  the  truth  of  the  revelation  is  shown 
by  miracles  ?  Passing  by  the  primary  objection  that 
no  outward  sign  can  overweigh  the  inward  sense  of 
truth,  how  can  a  miracle  convince  a  man  except  by 
appealing  to  his  judgment  and  experience  ?  What 
else  is  it  but  an  argument  from  the  analogy  of  hu- 
man life,  that  every  effect  has  a  cause  proportionate 
to  it ;  that  these  phenomena  are  above  that  order 
of  things  with  which  man  is  familiar,  or  which  he 
can  cause ;  and,  therefore,  as  supernatural  effects, 
must  have  a  supernatural  cause  ?  And  on  what  else 
does  the  cogency  of  this  argument  depend  than  upon 
a  previous  conviction  of  the  veracity  of  God  ;  a  con- 
viction derived  partly  from  the  human  intuition  of 
the  same  truth,  partly  from  man's  experience  of  Di- 
vine goodness  and  faithfulness.  Unless  we  believed 
beforehand  both  in  God's  existence  and  in  his  hon- 
esty and  kindness,  no  message,  no  matter  how  mirac- 
ulously authenticated,  would  be  of  such  significance 
as  either  to  invite  our  belief  or  even  be  worthy  of 
much  attention. 

Such  human  conditions  and  necessary  imperfec- 


THE  CLAIM  OF  RELIGION.  55 

tions,  in  general,  beset  religious  as  all  other  knowl- 
edge. And,  in  particular,  we  may  ask,  where  can 
faith  show  us  any  infallible  oracle  free  from  possi- 
bility of  mistake  and  human  limitation  ?  Will  the 
Church  furnish  us  with  such  a  superior  source  of 
knowledge  ?  The  Church  is  but  a  congregation  of 
fallible  men,  and  cannot  eliminate  from  its  sum  total 
what  is  contained  in  every  individual  part.  History 
shows  but  too  conclusively  how  far  from  infallible 
both  Church  and  pope  have  been.  In  its  unflatter- 
ing mirror,  the  oracle  of  Rome  is  exhibited  as  con- 
victed of  error  in  scientific  matters,  again  and  again ; 
compelled  to  retreat  from  position  to  position ; 
forced  to  correct  and  recorrect  its  interpretations. 
It  is  shown  vacillating  to  and  fro  in  regard  to  the 
most  important  ecclesiastical  questions ;  possessed 
of  no  clear  or  well-defined  principles  concerning 
many  essential  theological  issues ;  the  successive 
popes  refuting  and  overturning  each  other's  deci- 
sions ;  its  councils  annulling  the  bulls  of  the  popes, 
and  branding  them  as  heretical,  and  its  popes  fulmi- 
nating anathemas  against  its  councils.1 

If  this  be  the  course  that  consists  with  infalli- 
bility, its  advantage  over  fallible  sources  of  knowl- 
edge is  undiscoverable. 

Or  will  the  Bible  furnish  us  with  an  infallible 
authority  ? 

Study  its  pages  with  a  careful  eye,  and  see.    Does 

1  See  "  The  Pope  and  the  Council,"  by  Janus.  Translated  from 
the  German.     Boston  :  Roberts  Brothers.     Pp.  42-62. 


56      PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

it  claim  anywhere  to  be  absolutely,  throughout  its 
whole  extent  from  Genesis  to  Revelation,  free  from 
error  ?     Nowhere. 

What  Paul  says  refers  only  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, for  no  gospels,  and  but  few  epistles,  were 
then  written ;  and  what  he  asserts  is  that  all  Script- 
ure is  God-inspired — that  is,  filled  with  the  breath 
of  God — not  infallible.  And  the  particular  purposes 
for  which  it  is  profitable  he  specifies.  It  is  not  for 
scientific  knowledge,  but  "  for  teaching,  for  reproof, 
for  correction,  for  discipline  in  righteousness,  that 
the  man  of  God  may  be  perfect,  thoroughly  fur- 
nished unto  every  good  work  "  '  (2  Timothy,  iii.  16, 

17). 

The  claim  of  Paul,  criticism  must  admit.  The 
Scripture  is  filled  with  the  ~breath  of  God,  and  profit- 
able for  moral  and  spiritual  culture.  In  it  undoubt- 
edly "  men  of  God  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the 
Holy  Spirit."  But  to  the  eye  that  would  find  in  the 
Bible  a  flawless  record,  exempt  from  human  liabili- 
ties, a  different  answer  is  given.  Variations  of  style 
and  diversities  of  thought  meet  it.  Discrepancies 
of  fact  and  inconsistencies  in  statement,  which  all 
the  wearisome  toil  and  subtilties  of  commentators 
have  failed  to  reconcile,  confront  the  inquirer. 
What  is  prescribed  by  the  law  is  swept  away  by  the 
prophet.  What  is  said  by  them  of  old  time  is  re- 
pealed by  the  Christ.     Paul  shows  the  worthlessness 

1  Translation  of  Geo.  R.  Noyes,  D.  D.,  late  Hancock  Professor  ot 
Hebrew  and  other  Oriental  Languages  at  Harvard  University. 


THE  CLAIM  OF  RELIGION.  57 

of  works,  and  James  the  nothingness  of  faith  with- 
out them.  The  evangelists  quote  mistranslations 
from  the  inaccurate  version  of  the  Septuagint  with 
more  frequency  than  from  the  supposed  infallible 
Hebrew.  The  narratives  of  Genesis  fail  to  agree 
with  the  records  God  has  written  in  rock  and  bone- 
cavern,  in  fossil,  language,  and  star.  The  list  of 
books  considered  inspired  was  gradually  formed,  and 
has  differed  at  different  periods.  Books  now  called 
apocryphal  were  formerly  a  part  of  the  canonical 
Scriptures.  Books  formerly  rejected  as  apocryphal 
are  now  reckoned  as  a  part  of  the  divine  record. 
It  is  not  improbable  that  in  the  course  of  time  por- 
tions of  the  present  canon  may  be  transferred  to  the 
Apocrypha. 

The  text  of  the  Scriptures  is  by  no  means  free 
from  doubt,  nor  even  from  confessed  error.  As  it 
now  stands  in  our  received  version,  the  existence  of 
no  small  number  of  erroneous  readings  and  acknowl- 
edged interpolations  is  a  fact  known  to  all  scholars. 
For  an  accurate  test,  there  is  no  single  manuscript 
that  we  can  resort  to.  We  must  rely  upon  the  criti- 
cal judgment  of  certain  fallible  men  to  select,  out 
of  many  codexes,  the  particular  word  which  in  each 
passage  they  judge  the  most  likely  to  be  the  origi- 
nal. Surely  this  is  not  the  spectacle  that  should  be 
presented  by  an  authority  "without  mixture  of 
error." 

Surrendering,  then,  the  Church  and  the  Bible, 
may  we  find  in  the  Christ  an  authority  exceptional 


58      PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

and  absolute  ?  I  desire  not  to  deny  the  existence  of 
a  divine  element  in  Jesus.  I  gladly  recognize  him  as 
the  loftiest  spiritual  seer  and  teacher  the  world  has 
seen ;  the  best  historic  embodiment  of  spiritual  per- 
fection that  we  have.  But  we  must  own,  if  we  are 
clear-sighted  and  frank,  that  in  Christ  himself  we  do 
not  yet  obtain  an  oracle  exempt  from  the  limitations 
of  humanity  and  the  conditions  of  earthly  knowledge. 
There  was  in  him  the  human  as  well  as  the  divine. 
"  The  Word  was  made  flesh  and  dwelt  a  mongus ; ': 
and  through  that  fleshly  brain  and  tongue  it  saw  and 
spoke  what  it  saw,  using  the  language  of  the  day, 
addressing  itself  to  the  conceptions  and  issues  of  the 
age.  Acute  critics  have  shown  clearly  in  the  life 
and  teachings  of  Jesus  the  influence  of  the  epoch 
and  nation  that  environed  him.  They  have  pointed 
out  in  the  Jewish  literature,  preceding  and  contem- 
poraneous to  his  career,  the  elements  of  his  instruc- 
tion and  parallels  to  many  of  his  most  striking  say- 
ings. In  regard  to  those  ideas  of  his  which  were 
opposed  to  the  prevalent  ones  of  his  times,  it  should 
be  remembered  that  a  reaction  against  current  ideas 
is  not  uncommon,  and  as  much  a  natural  result  of 
them  and  evidence  of  their  influence,  as  conformity 
to  them.  That  wonderful  and  incomparable  flower, 
whose  beauty  shines  forth  from  Galilee  over  the 
whole  world,  did  not,  nevertheless,  grow  suspended 
in  the  air  without  contact  with  any  thing  else,  but 
was  sprung  from  a  Jewish  root,  elaborated  by  Jewish 
nutriment,  and  tinted  with  Jewish  hues.     Only  so 


THE  CLAIM  OF  RELIGION.  59 

could  Jesus  have  got  into  such  close  contact  with  his 
age  and  nation  as  to  gain  the  leverage  whereby  to 
fulfill  his  providential  mission  of  giving  to  it  a  mo- 
tion and  a  revolution  that  should  in  time  extend  to 
all  quarters  of  the  globe. 

Or,  lastly,  may  we  find  in  the  conscience  of  man, 
in  his  intuitions  of  truth  and  duty,  or  in  his  instincts 
of  worship,  an  infallible  oracle  ?  This  voice  within 
the  heart  is  a  channel  through  which  the  Universal 
Spirit  most  immediately  breathes  its  inspiring  influ- 
ence. To  each  individual  it  is  his  personal  oracle, 
his  final  authority.  But,  to  furnish  us  with  an  un- 
erring source  of  moral  or  religious  knowledge,  with 
an  absolute  authority,  it  has  no  claim.  For  whose 
intuition,  what  man's  conscience,  what  nation's  mor- 
al sense  or  religious  instinct,  shall  we  take  as  our 
standard  ?  That  of  the  Indian  Thug,  or  that  of  the 
Buddhist  who  thinks  it  a  sin  to  kill  a  flea  ?  That  of 
the  Feejee  parricide,  or  that  of  the  filial  Christian  ? 
That  of  the  worshiper  of  idols,  or  that  of  him  who 
worships  God  as  a  Spirit  in  spirit  and  in  truth  ? 
Every  student  of  history  knows  that  the  voice  with- 
in the  heart  varies  its  answers  in  every  degree  of 
latitude  and  longitude ;  has  as  many  differences  of 
expression  and  detail  as  the  individuals  in  whom  it 
whispers. 

Thus,  whatever  authority  Religion  may  choose, 
none  of  them  can  give  her  absolute  truth,  none  can 
exempt  her  from  the  limitations  and  conditions  of 
human  knowledge.     The  attempt  of  humanity,  by 


60      PHYSICAL   AND   RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

any  standard-building  it  can  perform,  by  any  selec- 
tion and  exaltation  of  one  expression  of  itself  over 
another,  to  free  itself  from  its  native  fallibility,  is 
as  futile  as  the  mediaeval  search  for  a  universal  sol- 
vent. If  any  one  says  he  possesses  the  universal 
solvent,  pray,  in  what  sort  of  a  vessel  does  he  keep 
it?  If  any  one  says  he  has  an  infallible  oracle, 
pray,  by  what  faculty  did  he  find  it,  by  what 
power  does  he  now  know  it,  comprehend  it,  and 
transmit  to  others  its  decisions  without  loss  of  that 
infallibility?  A  man's  natural  fallibility,  as  has 
well  been  said,  obviously  cleaves  to  him  like  his 
own  personality,  and  infects  every  decision  which 
he  makes. 

And,  as  Religion  must  recognize  that  her  knowl- 
edge is  not  free  from  the  human  conditions  and 
characteristics  which  belong  to  Science,  may  not  Sci- 
ence not  unlawfully  claim  for  its  knowledge  also  par- 
ticipation in  that  same  divine  origin  which  Religion 
has  boasted  of  as  its  sole  prerogative  %  Is  not  sci- 
ence, on  one  side  at  least,  from  God — a  missive  tell- 
ing of  the  Divine  existence  and  character  \  If  we 
ask  the  Christ,  we  find  him  from  field-lily  and  wild- 
sparrow  drawing  instruction  as  to  the  love  and  care 
of  the  heavenly  Father.  If  we  ask  of  Paul,  we  re- 
ceive as  answer,  "  The  invisible  things  of  him  from 
the  creation  of  the  world  are  clearly  seen,  being  un- 
derstood by  the  things  which  are  made,  even  his 
eternal  power  and  Godhead."  If  we  ask  of  the 
Psalmist,  the  response  comes  again  :  "  The  heavens 


THE  CLAIM  OF  RELIGION.  61 

declare  the  glory  of  God,  and  the  firmament  show- 
eth  his  handiwork ;  day  nnto  day  nttereth  speech, 
and  night  unto  night  showeth  knowledge."  Or,  if 
we  look  for  ourselves,  what  do  we  find?  These 
fauna  and  flora  which  Science  describes  are  not  its 
inventions.  The  hieroglyphics  in  the  rocks  which 
it  deciphers  are  not  of  its  construction.  Science 
finds  them  there  because  they  are  there ;  and  they 
are  there,  every  monotheist  must  say,  by  the  permis- 
sion, by  the  creation  of  God  ;  for,  unless  we  go  back 
to  dualism  or  polytheism,  we  must  recognize  God 
as  the  sole  author  of  all  things.  Whatever  facts  or 
laws  exist  in  the  world  are  there  because  such  was 
God's  will ;  whatever  relations  of  God  to  Nature, 
whatever  aspects  of  the  Divine  government,  are  dis- 
closed by  physical  investigations,  are  disclosed  be- 
cause God  himself  first  drew  the  picture,  and  then 
gave  to  man  the  eye  with  which  to  see  it.  As  we 
discern,  in  the  manner  a  house  is  built,  the  character 
of  its  builder,  what  sense  of  beauty  he  possesses, 
what  carelessness  or  faithfulness,  what  folly  or  wis- 
dom, characterizes  him,  so,  in  the  peculiarities  of  the 
kosmic  temple,  we  may  discover  the  attributes  of  the 
Great  Architect.  Whatever  God  has  done,  whatever 
God  is  doing,  is  an  expression  of  his  nature.  Every 
fact,  then,  which  Science  can  tell  the  world,  every 
law  it  can  unravel,  every  force  it  can  trace  out,  has 
some  divine  message  for  man.  Every  natural  phe- 
nomenon, be  it  bacteria  in  sealed  flasks,  or  colored 
bands  in  a  spectrum,  be  it  building  power  of  mole- 


62      PHYSICAL  AND   RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

cule,  mimicry  of  insects,  natural  selection  among  an- 
imals (provided  only  it  be  actual  fact,  not  guess  of 
man),  lias  something  to  tell  us  of  God's  thoughts, 
and  powers,  and  methods  of  action.  All  science  is 
thus  a  revelation  of  the  Omnipresent  Worker ;  every 
new  discovery  a  fresh  epistle  from  the  creative  Spir- 
it to  all  the  churches  of  knowledge.  And  is  it  rev- 
erent  to  look  on  this  grand  unveiling  of  Nature's 
mysteries,  these  sublime  disclosures  of  infinity,  eter- 
nity, unity,  and  order,  which  Science  has  given  us, 
as  things  coming  without  any  of  that  inspiration 
from  above  which  we  credit  to  the  advent  of  reli- 
gious knowledge  ?  Was  it  so  much  easier  a  thing  to 
discover  the  laws  of  planetary  motion  than  to  dis- 
cern the  moral  principles  laid  down  in  the  ten  com 
mandments?  Is  it  so  much  less  noble  a  thing  to 
write  the  history  of  God's  universe  than  the  history 
of  the  tribe  of  Judah  ?  That  seems  to  us  the  most 
worthy  view  of  inspiration  which  limits  it  not  to 
scribes,  nor  prophets,  nor  apostles,  but  makes  it 
the  light  of  all  our  seeing,  the  impulse  of  every 
noble  effort,  the  uplifting  force  in  every  spiritual 
ascent.  It  guides  the  studies  of  a  Cuvier  as  well 
as  the  legislation  of  a  Moses ;  it  animates  the 
thoughts  of  an  Agassiz  no  less  than  the  songs  of  a 
David. 

Religion,  then,  I  say,  cannot  rightfully  claim  to 
be  the  sole  source  of  knowledge.  She  possesses  no 
lawful  sovereignty  over  the  realm  of  Science,  but 
stands  on  the  same  ground  of  experience,  employs 


THE  CLAIM  OF  RELIGION.  63 

the  same  human  faculties,  is  subject  to  the  same  fal- 
lible conditions,  as  Science,  and  in  her  divine  mes- 
sage receives  not  an  exclusive  privilege,  but  one 
given  likewise  to  her  comrade.  How  unwise,  then, 
is  it  for  her  to  seek  to  discredit  Science,  to  endeavor 
to  obstruct  its  progress,  to  reject  the  new  light  phys- 
ical inquiries  are  affording,  and  angrily  to  denounce 
the  new  conceptions  of  Divine  existence  which  they 
are  introducing !  Religion  cannot  aim  a  blow  at  Sci- 
ence without  wounding  herself.  If  Religion  forbids 
us  to  trust  God's  own  handwriting  on  the  tablets  of 
Nature,  how  can  she  expect  the  world  to  accept 
the  revelations  which  have  come  to  us  in  each  case 
through  the  distorting  medium  of  human  faculties  ? 
If  Religion  forbids  us  to  trust  the  original  docu- 
ments which  are  open  to  every  one's  inspection, 
how  can  she  expect  us  to  receive  the  record  which 
has  descended  to  us  down  a  long  line  of  transmis- 
sions, transcriptions,  and  translations,  at  the  hands 
of  fallible  men  ?  If  Religion  refuse  to  receive  the 
corrections  of  Science,  and  repulse  her  proffered  as- 
sistance, how  can  she  escape  the  pitfalls  of  supersti- 
tion, how  can  she  rise  to  the  intellectual  heights, 
where  she  can  see  the  divine  truths  with  unobstruct- 
ed vision  ? 

For  Faith,  though  she  be  the  great  heaven- 
climber,  climbs  with  but  half-open  eye,  in  only  a 
twilight  light.  The  pure  and  exalted  spiritual  truths 
which  Religion  enjoys  to-day  were  by  no  means  the 

original  immediate  perception  of  an  infallible  faith- 

# 


G4      PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

faculty,  nor  the  primeval  possession  of  a  privileged 
recipient,  bnt  they  have  been  attained  only  by  the 
efforts  of  thousands  of  generations  who  have  suc- 
cessively "  felt  after  God  if  haply  they  might  find 
him  ; "  and  thus  groping,  straining  their  intellectual 
eyes,  have  so  refined  and  purged  the  inward  sense 
that  the  ever-present  reality  has  become  clearly 
perceptible,  !Not  by  a  single  bound  has  Religion 
sprung  to  the  mount  of  vision,  but  step  by  step  she 
has  patiently  toiled  upward.  "  The  glimmering 
wonder  of  original  f etichism  ;  the  wider  feeling  ex- 
pressed in  Nature-worship,  of  an  omnipresent  secret 
of  power ;  the  higher  consciousness  breaking  forth 
in  historical,  prophetic  religions,  of  the  connection 
between  this  reverence  for  the  Supreme  Majesty 
and  all  loyalty  of  soul,"  not  only  has  each  of  these 
been  a  phase  through  which  Religion  has  had  to 
pass,  but  the  transition  from  one  to  the  other  has 
been  by  numberless  gradations ;  and  it  has  been  be- 
cause of  the  criticisms  and  discoveries  of  Science, 
more  than  any  thing  else,  that  this  ascent  has  been 
made.  It  is  only  as  the  tides  of  wider  knowledge 
have  worn  away  terrace  after  terrace  of  the  alluvium 
of  superstition,  that  Religion  has  mounted  to  the 
loftier  and  immovable  rocks  of  fundamental  truths. 
It  is  only  as  physical  inquiry,  with  iconoclastic  ham- 
mer, has  broken  idol  after  idol,  that  Faith  has  trans- 
ferred her  embrace  to  the  purer  objects,  worthy  of 
worship.  And  as  Religion  is  indebted  to  Science 
for  this  progress  of  the  past,  so  for  the  future  it  is 


THE   CLAIM   OF  RELIGION.  c.& 

only  by  the  same  aid  that  she  can  expect  further 
advancement.  Instead  of  toning  to  Science  the 
cold  shoulder,  Faith  should  not  only  welcome  but 
invite  her  cooperation. 


Bti       PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 


CHAPTEE  IV. 

THE  CLAIM   OF   SCIENCE  TO   POSSESS   EXCLUSIVE   KNOWL- 
EDGE  AND   RIGHTFUL    SUPREMACY. THE    FAITHS    OF 

SCIENCE. ITS    GROUNDS    AND     METHODS     SIMILAR   TO 

THOSE    OF   RELIGION. 

The  time,  however,  lias  gone  by  in  which.  Sci- 
ence needs  much  help  against  Religion.  At  the 
present  day  the  physicists  can  very  well  take  care 
of  themselves  against  the  religious.  The  religious 
world,  to  a  considerable  extent,  is  learning  to  lower 
its  pretensions.  The  old  claims  of  the  exclusive 
possession  of  an  absolute  knowledge  and  of  a  right- 
ful supremacy  in  all  matters  of  belief  are  fast  drop- 
ping away.  Science,  by  the  most  intelligent  in  the 
religions  world,  is  coming  to  be  recognized,  not  as 
a  subordinate,  but  as  an  independent  power ;  not  as 
a  hostile  rebel,  but  as  a  friend  and  fellow-laborer. 
But,  unfortunately,  as  the  one  side  is  dropping  its 
dogmatism,  the  other  side  seems  to  be  picking  it  up 
and  clothing  itself  with  it.  The  infallibility  now  to 
be  feared  is  not  so  much  that  of  the  pontiff,  who 
fulminates  his  excommunications  from  the  Vatican, 


THE  CLAIM  OF  SCIENCE.  67 

as  that  of  the  scientific  popes,  who  essay,  from  pro- 
fessors' chairs,  to  lay  down  the  precise  boundaries 
within  which  Belief  may  now  walk.  The  oracle 
that  now  claims  an  exclusive  insight  and  certainty, 
that  looks  upon  other  avenues  to  truth  with  con- 
tempt and  disbelief ;  that  would  absorb,  if  it  could, 
all  other  authority  in  its  own,  is  not  so  much  Reli- 
gion as  Science. 

Look,  for  example,  at  the  very  word  science.  At 
the  present  day  it  is  commonly  employed  in  refer- 
ence to  physical  knowledge.  Such  an  expression  as 
the  "  science  of  religion,"  or  the  "  science  of  God, " 
strikes  us  as  unusual.  It  seems  to  involve  a  figura- 
tive extension  of  the  word  beyond  its  proper  sphere. 
Yet,  until  a  hundred  or  two  hundred  years  ago,  sci 
ence  denoted  merely  knowledge  in  general,  or,  in  a 
more  special  sense,  systematized  knowledge  of  any 
kind.  Shakespeare  speaks  of  "  music,  mathematics, 
and  other  sciences."  In  the  middle  ages,  the  science 
par  excellence — which  would  have  been  supposed  to 
be  referred  to,  if  the  general  word  was  used  for  some 
particular  but  unspecified  branch  of  knowledge — 
was  the  science  of  theology.  To  express  the  science 
of  Nature,  it  would  have  been  necessary  to  join  with 
it  some  qualifying  adjunct. 

The  change  in  the  use  of  the  word  indicates  a 
great  revolution  in  thought.  It  is  an  interesting 
historical  witness  to  the  wonderful  achievements  of 
physical  investigation,  and  to  the  lofty  claims  that  it 
makes  at  the  present  day.     "  I  alone,"  modern  Sci- 


68      PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

ence  tacitly  says,  by  the  very  name  by  which  it  desig- 
nates itself,  "  I  alone  am  scientia,  real  knowledge ; 
all  else  is  more  or  less  guess-work." 

And  this  is  not  merely  a  tacit  assumption,  an 
unconscious  arrogance,  but  a  claim  which  men  of 
science  nowadays  are  very  fond  of  publicly  pro- 
claiming. The  certainty  of  science  is  contrasted 
with  the  uncertainty  of  other  branches  of  pretended 
knowledge,  especially  with  that  of  religion.  Sci- 
ence, it  is  declared,  is  most  careful  in  its  require- 
ments of  proof  before  it  gives  credence,  Religion 
most  careless.  Science  carefully  examines  Nature 
and  life  to  see  what  things  really  are,  builds  up  its 
laws  by  an  inductive  accumulation  of  fact  upon  fact, 
and  then  demands  that  every  generalization  be  ex- 
perimentally verified  before  it  is  accepted  as  true. 
Religion,  on  the  other  hand,  with  pious  credulity 
mounts  any  vaulting  hypothesis  that  the  Church  may 
order  her  to  ride,  leaps  heroically  upon  it,  up  mist- 
formed  high-jyriori  roads,  toward  the  highest  heaven, 
and,  as  she  whirls  through  the  dizzy  heights,  lets 
down  link  after  link  of  deduction  with  as  much  con- 
fidence as  if  the  chain  were  fastened  to  some  immov- 
able support.  Augnste  Comte  classes  religion  with 
metaphysics,  as  but  "  products  of  the  world's  crude 
infancy."  "  Science,"  says  the  great  positive  philoso- 
pher, "conducts  God  with  honor  to  its  frontiers, 
thanking  him  for  his  provisional  services."  Huxley 
presents  against  Religion  the  charge  that  "  with  her 
the  belief  in  a  proposition,  because  authority  tells 


THE  CLAIM  OF  SCIENCE.  (59 

you  it  is  true,  or  because  you  wish  to  believe  it, 
which  is  a  high  crime  and  misdemeanor  when  the 
subject-matter  of  reason  is  of  one  kind,  becomes  un- 
der the  alias  of  faith  the  greatest  of  all  virtues  when 
the  subject-matter  of  reason  is  of  another  kind ; " 
and  he  would  enforce  upon  us  the  wise  advice,  as  he 
calls  it,  of  Hume  :  "  If  we  take  in  hand  any  volume 
of  divinity  or  school  metaphysic  for  instance,  let  us 
ask,  Does  it  contain  any  abstract  reasoning  concern- 
ing quantity  or  number?  No.  Does  it  contain  any 
experimental  reasoning  concerning  matters  of  fact 
and  existence  ?  Xo.  Commit  it,  then,  to  the  flames, 
for  it  can  contain  nothing  but  sophistry  and  illusion." 

Such  are  the  charges  currently  made  nowadays 
against  the  trustworthiness  of  the  truths  of  reli- 
gion ;  such  are  the  unfavorable  comparisons  made 
against  its  methods  and  results  as  compared  with 
those  of  science.  JSTot  a  few  men  of  eminent  repu- 
tation in  physical  investigation  have  lent  themselves 
to  it.  More  of  lesser  knowledge  have  loudly  exulted 
in  it ;  and  many  and  many  who  have  got  some  little 
smattering  of  modern  science  have  thought  to  show 
their  superior  enlightenment  by  most  extreme  charges 
against  the  validity  of  religious  knowledge. 

Now,  I  would  freely  admit  that  there  has  been 
and  still  is,  among  what  has  been  currently  accepted 
as  religious  truth,  a  great  deal  that  has  not  been  so 
certain  as  it  should  be.  Theology  has  advanced  ex- 
aggerated claims  to  absolute  knowledge.  It  has  in- 
dulged in  most  groundless  hypotheses.     It  has  made 


70      PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

most  unwarranted  assumptions  about  the  plans  and 
counsels  and  inmost  nature  of  the  Godhead,  and 
about  the  details  of  the  future  life,  and  about  scores 
of  other  things  entirely  beyond  human  power  to 
know.  Creeds  have  laid  down  dogmas  about  human 
nature  and  Scriptural  inspiration,  the  authority  of 
prophets  and  apostles,  the  work  and  deeds  and  na- 
ture of  Christ,  that  have  shown  themselves  plainly 
contradictory  to  observation  and  experience,  to  rea- 
son and  the  moral  sense. 

Mediaeval  scholasticism  especially  sinned  griev- 
ously in  these  respects.  It  delighted  in  hair-splitting 
disputations  over  frivolous  puzzles  and  in  endless 
speculations  about  things  not  only  transcending  the 
possibility  of  human  knowledge,  but  destitute  of  any 
practical  moment.  Its  only  criterion  of  truth  was 
the  deliverances  of  the  Church  or  the  almost  equally 
venerated  Aristotle.  When  Bacon  turned  the  hu- 
man mind  to  the  pursuit  of  the  useful  and  the  study 
of  natural  things,  and  enjoined  the  method  of  in- 
duction and  the  test  of  verification,  knowledge  made 
amazing  conquests.  The  human  atom,  looking  forth 
from  his  petty  pellet  of  planetary  matter,  has  meas- 
ured and  weighed  the  celestial  bodies,  traced  their 
orbits  through  the  heavens,  divined  the  processes  by 
which  they  grew  from  dusty  nebulae  into  glowing 
sun  or  life-blessed  planet ;  he  has  tracked  the  subtile 
Proteus,  Force,  from  form  to  form,  and  made  it  now 
fly  with  his  messages  and  then  drag  him  on  his  er- 
rands, and  spin,  and  knit,  and  reap,  and  sew  for  him. 


THE  CLAIM  OF  SCIENCE.  71 

It  is  Dot  strange,  therefore,  that  physical  science 
should  have  grown  somewhat  conceited,  and  ima- 
gined that  its  pet  methods  and  its  own  narrow  circle 
of  work  were  alone  compatible  with  any  solid  attain- 
ment. 

And  the  religions  world  for  the  most  part  has 
unwittingly  confirmed  this  assumption.  Finding 
the  researches  of  modern  science  in  geology,  as- 
tronomy, ethnology,  and  so  on,  bringing  up  for- 
midable objections  to  current  religious  doctrines, 
instead  of  saying,  "  Eeligion  knows  only  the  truth : 
if  the  received  doctrines  are  shown  to  be  inconsist- 
ent with  anv  fact,  let  them  be  revised" — instead  of 
thus  honestly  acknowledging  the  possibility  of  some 
past  errors,  and  removing  from  religion  the  bur- 
den of  sustaining  portions  found  to  be  erroneous  or 
doubtful,  the  religious  world,  for  the  most  part,  has 
clung  to  the  most  incredible  parts  as  if  they  were  its 
most  essential  elements ;  and  it  has  sought  to  justify 
them  by  declaring  that  the  unconverted  reason  is 
incapable  of  comprehending  the  high  mysteries  of 
religion.  Religious  truth  (theologians  and  preach- 
ers, defending  the  old  beliefs,  have  maintained)  be- 
longs to  another  realm  from  ordinary  kinds  of  truth. 
It  is  not  to  be  tried  by  the  understanding.  It  is  not 
to  be  brought  to  the  bar  of  common-sense — but  it  is 
to  be  discerned  by  the  inner  soul,  and  its  evidence 
found  in  the  soul's  satisfaction  in  it.  By  this  view, 
which  has  been  advocated  and  defended  by  such  men 
as  Hamilton,  Mansel,  Baclen  Powell,  and  Faraday, 


72      PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

the  field  of  truth  is  divided  into  two  separate  por- 
tions: one,  the  province  of  knowledge,  where  sci- 
ence holds  sway  ;  the  other,  the  province  of  belief, 
where  Religion  has  her  throne.  The  two,  however 
opposite  they  appear,  can  never,  it  is  declared,  really 
interfere  or  trouble  each  other.  Science  may  estab- 
lish that,  scientifically,  the  sloth,  and  the  humming- 
bird, and  the  kangaroo,  and  a  thousand  other  species 
of  living  creatures,  could  not  have  come  from  Aus- 
tralia, and  South  America,  and  Greenland,  across 
seas  and  icy  deserts,  to  take  shelter  in  Noah's  ark. 
Scientifically,  then,  it  is  not  to  be  credited — that  is 
all.  But,  as  a  matter  of  religion,  it  is  none  the  less 
to  be  accepted.  It  only  requires  more  of  that  faith 
without  sight  by  which  the  believer  should  walk. 

Xow,  by  taking  this  mode  of  defending  itself 
against  the  incursions  of  modern  science,  the  Church 
has  aided  much  in  spreading  suspicion  of  the  cer- 
tainty of  its  cherished  doctrines.  When  its  own 
advocates  would  make  a  believer's  mind  like  those 
vessels  that  are  built  with  water-tight  compartments, 
one-half  of  it  for  the  play  of  common-sense,  the 
other  for  the  dwelling-place  of  faith,  such  trouble- 
some things  as  reason  and  observation  being  securely 
locked  out  when  the  soul  is  at  its  devotions,  or  con- 
sidering its  creed — it  is  exceedingly  likely  that  those 
practically  inclined  should  judge  this  realm  of  faith 
*o  be  not  a  realm  of  fact,  but  of  fancy.  Bishops  like 
he  of  London  may  exhort  the  modern  inquirer  as 
eloquently  as  they  please  to  throw  away  doubt  as 


THE   CLAIM   OF  SCIENCE.  73 

they  would  a  bomb-shell :  but  it  serves  only  to  make 
the  investigator  more  suspicious  of  the  validity  of 
religion.  lie  beholds  science  challenging  for  itself 
full  and  searching  scrutiny,  but  his  spiritual  guides 
hiding  away  religious  truth  as  much  as  possible  from 
his  inspection.  He  sees  science  becoming  more  firm- 
ly established  the  more  vigorously  it  is  criticised. 
He  beholds  Theology,  meantime,  grudgingly  and  un- 
graciously, but  continuously,  yielding  up,  before  the 
steady  advance  of  scientific  investigation,  one  after 
another  long-cherished  dogma.  The  entire  circle  of 
religious  truth  falls  under  doubt.  That  which  is 
declared  to  be  beyond  the  depth  of  reason  he  sus- 
pects is  only  a  turbid  shallow  of  superstition  ;  and 
this  faith,  which  is  not  knowledge,  will  never  do  for 
practical  men  who  seek  realities.  The  only  thing 
which  seems  to  the  modern  inquirer  entirely  worthy 
of  confidence  is  science,  and  to  that  he  looks,  in  min- 
gled fear  and  hope,  to  see  what  loved  belief  it  shall 
next  sweep  away,  or  wdiat  modicum  of  religion,  if 
any,  it  shall  discover  at  last  a  scientific  justification 
for. 

JSTow,  if  it  be  the  fact  that  knowledge  is  only  to 
be  found  within  the  special  circle  and  by  the  special 
methods  of  physical  science,  if  religion  has  nothing 
equally  certain  to  show,  then,  it  seems  to  me,  the 
fate  of  religion,  among  all  educated  men,  is  already 
sealed  ;  and  the  wise  will  seek  as  soon  as  possible, 
in  museums  and  scientific  institutions,  the  only 
Teacher  who  can  declare  abiding,  trustworthy  truth. 
4 


74       PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

And,  moreover,  as  long  as  there  prevails  the  current, 
unrelated  susjncion  that  it  is  so — as  long  as  the  re- 
ligious world  sanctions  expressly  or  implicitly  the 
idea  that  theology  requires,  to  use  Huxley's  phrase, 
"a  different  measure  and  a  different  weight  from 
science,"  it  will  be  impossible  for  it  to  disarm  the 
hostility  of  scientific  minds,  it  will  be  impossible  for 
it  to  maintain  its  foothold  in  society  against  the 
steady  crowding  out  which  physical  discoveries  are 
constantly  exercising  upon  it.  If  the  religious  do- 
main in  the  modern  mind  is  not  to  become  such  a  do- 
main as  Strauss  charges  that  it  already  is,  "  a  domain 
resembling  that  of  the  red  Indians  in  America,  re- 
duced to  constantly  narrower  limits  by  their  white 
neighbors,"  it  must  be  shown  that,  in  its  essential 
elements,  it  possesses  certainty,  not  absolute  certain- 
ty— for  we  are  learning  that  for  man  there  is  little 
or  no  absolute  certainty — but  the  same  kind  and 
measure  of  certainty  as  men  act  upon  in  trade  and 

daily  life,  and  especially  accept  unhesitatingly  in  sci- 
ence. 

In  the  last  century  Bishop  Butler  wrote  a  fa- 
mous argument  in  which  he  showed  the  analogy  of 
religion  to  the  course  of  Nature,  and  that  the  same 
sort  of  difficulties  that  are  found  in  it  are  found  also 
in  the  constitution  of  Nature.  It  presented  strongly 
the  inconsistency  of  those  who,  accepting  Nature  as 
the  work  of  a  wise  and  good  God,  halt  before  the 
difficulties  which  they  descry  in  the  course  of  reve- 
lation.    But  that  argument,  well  put  as  it  was,  has 


THE   CLAIM  OF  SCIENCE.  75 

lost  its  effectiveness  against  the  doubters  of  religion 
to-day.  For  its  corner-stone,  the  doubter's  belief  in 
Divine  Creation,  is  just  the  thing  now  called  in  ques- 
tion ;  and  the  exhibition  of  difficulties  in  Divine  Cre- 
ation similar  to  those  in  revelation,  instead  of  lead- 
ing the  inquirer  to  accept  both,  rather  inclines  him 
to  throw  them  both  overboard.  The  method  of  that 
argument,  however,  has  always  seemed  to  us  a  good 
one,  provided  only  some  corner-stone  which  the 
doubter  thoroughly  accepted  as  solid  could  be  found 
from  which  to  start  the  reductio  ad  absurdum. 

Now  this  corner-stone  seems  to  be  furnished  at 
the  present  day  by  physical  science.  It  is,  as  we 
have  just  noticed,  the  oracle  of  almost  every  reli- 
gious doubter,  the  arsenal  from  which  he  draws  most 
of  the  arrows  he  casts  against  religion,  the  rival  for 
the  suffrages  of  belief  with  which  religion  is  unfa- 
vorably contrasted — the  substitute,  in  fine,  which  his 
instincts  of  reverence  and  worship  put  in  the  place 
of  God  and  constitute  his  Divinity.  Now,  if  it  can 
be  shown  that  the  same  difficulties  attend  this  un- 
questioned science  as  attend  religion,  and  that  reli- 
gion, whether  or  not  it  has  absolute  proof,  yet  has 
just  as  good  proof  as  that  which  in  physical  matters 
all  accept,  the  doubter,  it  seems  to  me,  will  have  lit- 
tle ground  left  to  stand  upon,  and  the  practical  trust- 
worthiness of  religion  will  be  shown. 

Now  this,  I  believe,  can  be  shown.  Knowledge 
is  not  a  special  privilege  of  natural  science.  The 
proofs  and  evidences  of  religion  are  just  as  valid. 


76       PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE 

For  most  of  them  are  strikingly  similar,  not  a  few 
identical.  The  grounds,  and  methods,  and  results 
of  spiritual  knowledge  are,  in  the  main,  either  the 
same  or  closely  analogous  to  those  of  accepted  physi- 
cal truths.  The  common  charges  made  against  reli- 
gion are  applicable  also  against  contemporary  science. 
Science  cannot  discredit  religion  without  invalidating 
its  own  work;  and  those  who  unhesitatingly  accept 
all  the  deliverances  of  physical  investigation  ought 
logically  to  accord  the  same  belief  to  the  similar 
proofs  which  Religion  presents  of  her  main  theses. 

This  similarity  between  religious  and  physical 
knowledge  is  what  I  aim  to  set  forth  in  the  next 
few  chapters.  The  subject  divides  itself  into  two 
great  divisions :  I.  A  comparison  of  the  grounds 
and  methods  of  science  with  those  of  religion  ;  II.  A 
comparison  of  the  objects  aimed  at  and  the  results 
reached  by  the  two. 

I.  The  grounds  and  methods  of  science  compared 
with  those  of  religion. 

The  means  of  gaining  knowledge  are  various. 
There  is — 

1.  Personal  observation  and  experience  furnished 
by  the  senses.  This  may  be  either  (a)  original ;  or 
(b)  in  verification  of  something  already  discovered, 
testified  to,  expected,  or  predicted. 

2.  Intuition.  This  comprehends  (a)  immediate 
cognition  of  consciousness  or  direct  mental  percep- 
tions, and  (b),  corresponding  to  these,  constitutional 
convictions  universal  and  necessary  among  the  bulk 


THE   CLAIM   OF  SCIENCE.  77 

of  mankind — convictions  suggested  and  developed 
by  experience,  but  before  personal  experience  exist- 
ing as  native  predispositions,  moulding  and  making 
possible  experience,  and,  when  developed,  extending 
their  affirmations  beyond  the  limits  of  all  experience. 

3.  Testimony.  This  may  be  either  (a)  in  witness 
of  a  fact,  that  is,  evidence,  or  (ft)  in  the  shape  of  an 
opinion  or  judgment  of  some  one  presumed  to  know ; 
that  is,  authority. 

4.  Inference,  by  which  these  various  data  are 
worked  up.  This  may  be  either  (a)  deductive,  that 
is,  reasoning  from  the  general  to  the  particular ;  or 
(ft)  inductive,  reasoning  from  one  quality  in  many  to 
the  same  in  all ;  or  (c)  analogical,  reasoning  from  sim- 
ilar qualities  in  one  to  the  accompanying  qualities 
in  the  same. 

Again,  inference  may  be  either  (d)  demonstra- 
tive, reaching  certitude ;  or  (e)  probable,  approximat- 
ing more  or  less  to  certitude,  reaching  at  one  end  of 
the  scale  moral  certainty,  at  the  other  amounting 
simply  to  a  theory  or  hypothesis. 

Now,  it  is  a  prevalent  notion,  especially  among 
those  who  unfavorably  contrast  the  methods  of  reli- 
gion with  those  of  science,  that  of  these  various 
methods,  science  uses  almost  entirely  the  following 
four :  sense-observation,  induction,  deduction  of  ex- 
perimental tests,  and  verification ;  and  has  little  or 
nothing  to  do  with  the  opposite  methods :  intuitive 
cognition  and  belief,  evidence,  authority,  analogy, 
and  other  kinds  of  merely  probable  inference.     Re- 


78      PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

ligion,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  charged,  neglects  almost 
entirely  the  first  set  of  methods,  and  trusts  herself 
unwarrantably  to  the  last. 

Huxley,  for  example,  in  his  lecture  upon  the 
"  Educational  Value  of  the  Study  of  Natural  Histo- 
ry," '  states  what  he  says  is  the  method  of  all  science, 
and  it  consists  of  simply  the  four  steps  just  men- 
tioned. Newton  declared  that  hypotheses  are  not 
to  be  regarded  in  experimental  philosophy,  but  only 
observations  and  inductions.  Prof.  Tait  says :  "  Nat- 
ural philosophy  is  an  experimental  science.  No 
a  priori  reasoning  can  conduct  us  demonstratively 
to  a  single  physical  truth."  Comte  will  not  allow 
introspection  as  a  source  of  valid  knowledge.  "  Pos- 
itive philosophy,"  according  to  him,  "  knows  only 
sense-observation  and  the  various  inductions  and  de- 
ductions that  may  be  made  from  it"  Hippolyte 
Taine  says,  in  reference  to  the  general  ideas  which 
correspond  to  real  qualities,  that  "they  are  the  ob- 
ject of  the  experimental  sciences,  and  their  connec- 
tions are  discovered  by  the  inductive  road."  Lewes 
similarly  condemns  intuition  as  having  "  no  such 
safeguard  "  as  sense  has.  "  The  method  of  verifica- 
tion, let  us  never  forget,"  he  says,  "  is  the  one  grand 
characteristic  distinguishing  science  from  philoso- 
phy, modern  inquiry  from  ancient  inquiry.  .  .  .  The 
proof  is  with  us  the  great  object  of  solicitude.  We 
demand  certainty ;  and  as  the  course  of  human  evo- 

1  "  Lay  Sermons,"  p.  83. 
*  "  On  Intelligence,"  p.  409. 


THE  CLAIM  OF  SCIENCE.  79 

lution  shows  certainty  to  be  attainable  on  no  other 
method  than  the  one  followed  by  science,  the  con- 
demnation of  metaphysics  is  inevitable." :  And 
Prof.  Tyndall,  in  his  answer,  in  the  Contemporary 
Review,  to  the  critics  of  his  prayer-gange  sugges- 
tion, after  acknowledging  that  the  theory  of  an 
over-ruling  God  who  answers  prayer  is  a  legitimate 
theory,  says,  "  but,  without  verification,  a  theoretic 
conception  is  a  mere  figment  of  the  intellect." 

Now,  no  such  division  or  contrast  in  the  meth- 
ods of  science  and  religion  exists,  I  believe.  If  they 
be  taken  up  successively,  it  will  be  seen,  I  think, 
that  science,  on  the  one  hand,  employs  intuitive  cog- 
nition and  belief,  authority  and  evidence,  analogies, 
hypotheses,  and  various  probable  inferences,  as  well 
as  religion ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  that  religion, 
like  science,  grounds  itself  on  observation,  induction, 
and  experimental  verification.  In  short,  science  has 
its  faith-basis,  and  faith  its  scientific  foundation. 

I.  Let  us  consider  first  the  faith-basis  of  science. 
Take,  to  begin  with,  intuition.  Here  has  always 
been  one  of  the  chief  bulwarks  of  religion.  It  is 
from  the  immediate  cognition  of  consciousness  that 
religion  affirms  that  it  derives  those  spiritual  phe- 
nomena, personality,  free-will,  devotional  sensibility, 
and  aspiration,  and  those  great  ideas,  right  and  wrong, 
duty,    responsibility,   infinity,  perfection,    divinity, 

1  "Biographical  History  of  Philosophy,"  pp.  xxix.,  xxx.,  Intro- 
duction. In  his  "Problems  of  Life  and  Mind,"  passim,  the  same 
thing  is  said  again  and  again. 


80      PHYSICAL   AND   RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

which  constitute  its  foundations.  And  it  is  to  the 
native  convictions,  universal  in  humanity,  of  a  great 
Superhuman  Spirit,  and  of  a  longer  life  for  the  hu- 
man soul  than  its  life  in  the  flesh — convictions  at 
first  perhaps  dim  and  vague,  possibly  mere  predis- 
positions to  this  view  rather  than  that,  but  with  ex- 
perience and  intellectual  development  becoming 
clearer  and  more  elevated — that  religion  refers  as 
among  the  strongest  proofs  of  its  truth. 

Men  of  science,  however,  as  we  have  already  no- 
ticed, have  entertained  the  greatest  hostility  to  and 
scorn  of  intuition ;  and  have  made  it  one  of  their 
chief  objections  to  theology  that  it  trusts  so  confid- 
ingly to  it.  Nevertheless,  intuitive  cognition  and 
conviction  is  the  only  ground  upon  which  science 
can  rest  a  large  part  of  its  own  fundamental  doc- 
trines. Science,  for  example,  accepts  as  the  most 
trustworthy  of  all  its  departments  the  science  of 
geometry.  The  truths  established  by  it  are  indis- 
pensable to  astronomy  and  to  much  of  mechanics 
and  physics.  Yet,  how  is  the  truth  of  the  funda- 
mental axioms  of  geometry  known  %  By  sense-ob- 
servation ?  No  skill  and  care  would  ever  enable  us 
to  learn  or  prove  experimentally  any  one  geometrical 
proposition  in  the  absolute  way  in  which  we  know 
them  all.  Any  finite  amount  of  difference  vastly 
less  than  what  the  sense  could  discern  would  falsify 
them.  Yet  the  most  delicately  measured  and  con- 
structed figures  are  but  rude  approximations.  They 
may  seem  equal  where  they  are  unequal,  and  regu- 


THE  CLAIM  OF  SCIENCE.  81 

lar  where  they  are  irregular.  In  fact,  there  are  in 
Kature  no  unextencled  points,  no  breacithless  lines, 
no  even  planes,  no  exact  circles  and  spheres,  such  as 
geometry  deals  with.  Our  diagrams  might  suggest 
such  truths  as  that  the  sum  of  the  angles  of  a  trian- 
gle are  equal  to  two  right  angles,  and  that  the  square 
on  the  hypothenuse  is  equal  to  the  sum  of  the  squares 
on  the  other  two  sides.  But  they  never  could  make 
it  absolutely  certain.  Our  exact  and  absolute  knowl- 
edge of  these  truths  is  known,  just  as  the  axioms  of 
morality  are,  by  the  mind's  eye,  by  the  direct  inner 
apprehension. 

Or  in  any  of  the  physical  sciences,  take  up  any 
so-called  simple  fact  of.  observation,  and  see  how,  in- 
stead of  the  observer  and  his  fact  standing  in  direct 
relation,  there  is  a  perfect  chain  of  successive  intui- 
tions between  them. 

A  botanist,  for  example,  relates  to  a  scientific 
society  that  he  saw  last  week  the  phenomenon  of  a 
perfectly  green  rose.  But  how,  Mr.  Botanist,  do 
you  know  that  you  really  observed  such  a  thing  1 
You  saw  it,  you  say,  with  your  own  eyes.  But  how 
do  you  know  your  eyes  are  to  be  trusted  ?  Perhaps 
you  say  that  you  smelt  it  or  felt  it,  also.  Still,  let 
all  the  senses  testify  to  it,  how  do  you  know  they 
do  not  all  deceive  you  ?  It  is  possible.  The  best 
observer  may  make  mistakes.1     Every  sense  is  liable 

1  Astronomers  have  long  recognized,  under  "  allowance  for  per- 
sonal equation,"  a  certain  inexactness  in  the  observations  of  the  best 
observers. 


£2      PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

to  erroneous  suggestion.1  Every  morning  we  wake 
from  a  crowd  of  fallacious  perceptions,  and  our  open- 
eyed  moments  are  but  waking  dreams.  Taine  calls 
perception,  in  his  work  on  "Intelligence,"  "essen- 
tially hallucination,"  so  liable  does  he  show  it  to  be 
to  deception,  and  so  constantly  does  it  refer  sensa- 
tions to  localities  of  the  body  where  they  do  not 
really  exist.3 

1  Either  an  excitement  of  the  nervous  centre  by  hasheesh,  opium, 
alcohol,  or  some  intense  idea,  or  an  irritation  of  the  nerve  by  con- 
cussion or  local  inflammation,  is  sufficient,  as  repeated  experiments 
and  observations  have  shown,  to  excite  illusions  of  the  senses.  Such 
volumes  as  Maury's  "Annales  Medico-Psychologiques,"  Baillarger's 
"  Des  Hallucinations,"  Griesinger's  "  Traite  des  Malades  Mentales," 
Abercrombie's  "  Inquiries  concerning  the  Intellectual  Powers,"  or 
any  standard  "  Pathology  "  or  "  Physiology  "  will  illustrate  this  point. 

2  Taine,  in  Part  II.,  Book  I.,  Chapter  I.  of  his  "  On  Intelligence," 
shows  by  numerous  instances  cited  from  medical  authorities,  that 
while  we  assign  every  sensation  which  we  experience  to  a  certain 
place  in  our  sensory  members,  foot,  hand,  tongue,  etc.,  this  is  but  an 
illusion.  When  a  foot  has  been  amputated,  tinglings  will  be  felt  for 
many  years,  as  if  in  the  foot  no  longer  there.  Disease  in  the  marrow 
excites  tinglings  in  the  extremities.  When  a  new  nose  is  formed 
by  turning  down  a  flap  of  skin  from  the  forehead,  and  the  nose  is 
touched,  it  still  seems  for  a  long  time  to  be  the  forehead  that  is 
touched.  The  sensation,  though  usually  excited  by  some  external 
object,  may  be  excited  by  some  molecular  disturbance  in  the  nerve, 
or  by  an  image  in  the  cerebral  lobe.  The  affirmative  judgment, 
or  mental  perception,  none  the  less  follows.  We  call  it  then  a  case 
of  hallucination.  But  as  in  all  cases  the  presence  of  this  internal 
sensation  is  the  immediate  antecedent — as  it  is  this  internal  phan- 
tom which  is  taken  for  an  external  object — all  perceptions  are 
really  hallucinations.  "  Thus  external  perception,"  he  says,  "  is  an 
internal  dream.  .  .  .  The  hallucination  which  seems  a  monstrosity  is 
the  very  fabric  of  our  mental  life." 


THE  CLAIM  OF  SCIENCE.  S3 

"  Of  course,"  says  the  botanist,  "  I  am  liable  to 
mistake  a  false  perception  for  a  true  one,  but  what- 
ever is  really  perceived  is  infallible  evidence  for  its 
own  truth."  But  what  is  "  really  perceived  ? '  When 
the  actual  observation  is  rigorously  analyzed  we  find 
that  what  is  actually  observed  is  not  any  external 
thing,  but  certain  inward  states  of  consciousness 
which  we  call  sensations — sensations  of  color,  smell, 
tonch,  etc.  As  Mill,1  and  Bain,  and  Taine,  have 
shown  in  the  field  of  philosophy,  and  Huxley,  and 
Spencer,  and  Helmholtz,  have  reaffirmed  as  repre- 
sentatives of  science,  all  that  we  really  know  of  any 

1  John  Stuart  Mill,  in  his  "  Examination  of  Sir  William  Hamil- 
ton," Chapter  XI.,  defines  matter  as  a  "  permanent  possibility  of  sen- 
sation," and  will  not  believe  in  matter  in  any  other  sense.  "  I  do 
not  believe,"  he  says,  "  that  the  real  externality  to  us  of  any  thing, 
except  other  minds,  is  capable  of  proof." 

Prof.  Helmholtz,  in  "  The  Recent  Progress  of  the  Theory  of  Vi- 
sion," says  :  "  What  we  directly  apprehend  is  not  the  immediate  action 
of  the  external  exciting  cause  upon  the  ends  of  our  nerves,  but  only 
the  changed  condition  of  the  nervous  fibres,  which  we  call  the  state 
of  excitation  or  functional  activity." 

Prof.  Huxley,  in  his  address  on  Descartes,  "  Lay  Sermons," 
p.  340,  says,  emphatically :  "  Matter  and  force  are,  so  far  as  we  can 
know,  mere  names  for  certain  forms  of  consciousness.  . .  .  Thus  it 
is  an  indisputable  truth  that,  what  we  call  the  material  world,  is  only 
known  to  us  under  the  forms  of  the  ideal  world." 

Herbert  Spencer,  "  Principles  of  Psychology,"  p.  206,  says,  after 
an  extended  review  of  the  relativity  of  feelings  :  "  Thus  we  are 
brought  to  the  conclusion  that  what  we  are  conscious  of  as  proper- 
ties of  matter,  even  down  to  its  weight  and  resistance,  are  but  sub- 
jective affections  produced  by  objective  agencies  that  are  unknown 
and  unknowable." 


84     PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

object  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than  our  knowledge 
of  certain  forms  of  our  own  consciousness.  There 
is  no  observation,  strictly  speaking,  of  any  external 
object.  We  must  either  say,  with  Prof.  Bain  and 
his  school,  that  "  the  belief  in  the  existence  of  any 
portion  of  matter  outside  and  independent  of  our 
consciousness  is  a  most  anomalous  fiction,"  or  else 
we  must  rest  for  its  truth  on  an  intuitive  conviction 
of  the  veracity  of  the  senses  and  the  existence  of  an 
external  world  such  as  would  give  rise  within  us  to 
our  felt  states  of  consciousness. 

Again,  you  say  that  you  saw  the  rose  last  week. 
Still  more  intuitive  beliefs  must  you,  then,  lean 
upon.  For,  how  can  you  testify  with  certainty  to 
what  occurred  last  week  ?  You  have  no  present  sen- 
sation such  as  you  describe.  You  have  only  in  your 
present  consciousness  an  image  or  recollection  of  it, 
and  how  do  you  know  that  this  present  image  is  a 
truthful  copy  of  the  past  sensation?  There  is  no 
reason  for  it  except  that  intuitive  conviction  of  the 
veracity  of  memory  which  John  Stuart  Mill  himself 
is  forced  to  acknowledge  as  an  "ultimate  belief."1 
Xo  past  experience  can  prove  this  trustworthiness 
of  memory.  For  it  must  in  each  case  be  taken  for 
granted  before  you  can  have  any  cognizance  what- 
ever of  your  past  experience. 

But  still  another  intuition  belongs  to  the  chain. 
YTou  said  that  it  was  you  who  observed  the  rose  last 

1  Mill's  "Examination  of  Hamilton,"  p.  216,  vol.  i.,  American 
edition. 


THE  CLAIM  OF  SCIEXCE.  85 

week.  You  remember  it  as  an  experience  of  your- 
self, and  you  imply,  and  the  worth  of  your  testimony 
depends  upon  the  fact,  that  you  who  a  week  ago  had 
a  certain  sensation,  and  now  have  it  not,  are  yet  one 
and  the  self -same  person.  Now,  how  do  you  know 
this  personal  identity  ?  Again,  you  must  admit  you 
know  it  only  by  an  intuitive  conviction. 

Thus,  to  be  able  to  trust  the  simplest  past  obser- 
vation of  a  natural  object,  we  must  accept  these  four 
intuitive  beliefs :  1.  In  the  veracity  of  the  senses ; 
2.  In  the  reality  of  an  external  world;  3.  In  the 
veracity  of  memory ;  4.  In  our  continuing  personal 
identity. 

Among  the  fundamental  principles  on  which  sci- 
ence depends  are  the  three  doctrines  of  the  inde- 
structibility of  matter,  the  continuity  of  motion,  and 
the  persistence  of  force.  Were  it  possible  for  mat- 
ter to  become  non-existent,  or  for  motion  or  force  to 
lapse  into  nothing,  there  would  exist  in  science  incal- 
culable elements,  fatal  to  all  positive  knowledge  or 
scientific  interpretation  of  phenomena.  What  war- 
rant have  we,  then,  for  the  truth  of  these  great  prin- 
ciples? Inductive  experiment?  This  has  certainly 
contributed  much  to  establish  it.  Delicate  tests  with 
balance  and  retort  have  shown  that  when  matter, 
motion,  or  force,  seemed  to  disappear,  they  simply 
changed  their  form,  place,  or  direction.  Solids 
changed  to  gases,  molar  motion  to  molecular  mo- 
tion, force  of  heat  passed  into  magnetic  or  chemical 
force.      Track  the  cunning  Proteus  into  his   new 


86      PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

haunt,  and  you  will  find  him  there  undiminished  in 
quantity.  This  is  what  experience  has  suggested 
and  approximately  proved.  But  it  has  only  done  so 
approximately,  never  absolutely.  It  has  shown  that 
the  more  delicate  were  its  means  of  measurement, 
the  more  closely  it  could  follow  every  diverging 
motion  or  escaping  matter,  the  more  nearly  equiva- 
lent was  the  quantity  accounted  for  at  the  end  with 
that  with  which  the  experiment  began.  But  it  has 
never  proved  this  with  any  absolute  exactness,  nor  for 
any  larger  field  than  the  narrow  circles  which  have 
been  specially  investigated.1  Moreover,  all  through 
the  so-called  process  of  inductive  proof,  the  truth  to 
be  demonstrated  has  been  continually  assumed,  as 
Herbert  Spencer  has  admirably  shown  in  the  fourth, 
fifth,  and  sixth  chapters  of  his  "  First  Principles." 
Whatever  inductive  experiments  are  made  depend 
for  their  validity  upon  the  continual  assumption  that 
the  gravitation  of  the  weights,  or  whatever  unit  of 
force  is  taken  as  the  measure,  remains  constant,  and 
of  this,  says  Herbert  Spencer  (p.  187),  no  proof  is 
assigned,  nor  can  be  assigned.  "  Kor  is  it  only  in 
their  concrete  data,"  he  continues,  "  that  the  reason- 
ings of  terrestrial  and  celestial  physics  assume  the 
persistence  of  force.     They  equally  assume  it  in  the 

1  Prof.  Joseph  Lovering,  in  his  address  as  president,  before  the 
American  Association  at  Hartford,  1874,  says  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
conservation  of  energy :  "  The  most  that  physical  science  can  assert 
is,  that  it  possesses  no  evidence  of  the  destructibility  of  matter  or 
force."  See  also  Lewes's  "  Problems  of  Life  and  Mind,"  vol.  ii.,  p. 
262. 


THE  CLAIM  OF  SCIENCE.  87 

abstract  principle  with  which  they  set  out,  and  which 
they  repeat  in  justification  of  every  step.  The  equal- 
ity of  action  and  reaction  is  taken  for  granted  from 
beginning  to  end  of  the  argument ;  and  to  assert 
that  action  and  reaction  are  equal  and  opposite,  is  to 
assert  that  force  is  persistent.  .  .  .  Clearly,  then,  the 
persistence  of  force  is  an  ultimate  truth  of  which  no 
inductive  proof  is  possible." 

Or  take  the  other  great  basic  principle  of  sci- 
ence— the  uniformity  of  Nature,  embracing  in  that 
term  both  the  uniformities  of  coexistence,  or  accom- 
panying qualities  of  things,  and  the  uniformities  of 
succession,  or,  as  Mill  calls  it,  the  universality  of 
causation.  The  validity  of  all  induction,  of  all  rea- 
sonings as  to  matter  of  fact  in  past,  present,  or  fu- 
ture, depends  upon  the  assumption  of  this  uniform- 
ity of  Nature.  What  scientific  foundation,  then, 
does  science  present  for  this  universal  basis  of  its 
knowledge  ?  It  has  none.  John  Stuart  Mill,  to  be 
sure,  sought  to  rest  this  general  basis  of  induction 
upon  induction  itself,  even  upon  an  induction  by 
simple  enumeration.1  But  all  his  logical  skill  could 
not  cover  up  the  fact  that  he  was  thus  proving  the 
universal  by  a  limited  number  of  particulars,  the 
greater  by  the  less,  the  stronger  by  the  weaker.  It 
hardly  needs  to  be  pointed  out  that  any  particular 
experience,  short  of  universal  extent,  cannot  prove 

1  "  I  hold  it  to  be  itself  an  instance  of  induction,  and  induction  by 
no  means  of  the  most  obvious  kind." — ("  Logic,"  Book  III.,  Chapter 
HI,  §  1.) 


88      PHYSICAL  AXD  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

a  universal  law.  However  the  evidence  be  manipu- 
lated, a  general  and  absolute  conclusion  cannot  be 
established  upon  a  limited  and  uncertain  premise. 
Experience  can  only  testify  as  to  what  has  been,  not 
as  to  what  will  be.  It  can  testify  to  what  has  come 
within  its  field,  not  as  to  what  is  outside.  Although 
two  events  have  accompanied  each  other  a  hundred 
thousand  times  under  our  observation,  that  is  no 
proof  that  they  will  do  so  the  next  time.  It  is  pos- 
sible that  they  may  not.  As  one  whose  predispo- 
sitions all  lead  the  other  way  says,  "Water  has 
quenched  our  thirst  in  the  past ;  by  what  assump- 
tion do  we  affirm  that  the  same  will  happen  in  the 
future  ?  Experience  does  not  teach  this ;  experience 
is  only  of  what  has  actually  been  ;  and,  after  never 
so  many  repetitions  of  a  thing,  there  still  remains 
the  peril  of  venturing  upon  the  untrodden  land  of 
future  possibility.  The  fact,  generally  expressed  as 
Nature's  uniformity,  is  the  guarantee,  the  ultimate 
major  premise  of  all  induction.  '  What  has  been  will 
be,'  justifies  the  inference  that  water  will  assuage 
thirst  in  after-times.  We  can  give  no  reason,  no 
evidence,  for  this  uniformity  ;  and  therefore  the 
course  seems  to  be  to  adopt  this  as  the  finishing  pos- 
tulate."—(Bain's  "Logic,"  I.,  273.) 

This  is,  indeed,  the  only  logical  course,  to  admit 
the  belief  in  the  uniformity  of  Nature  as  a  funda- 
mental postulate,  a  primary  intuition,  an  ultimate 
law  of  the  mind.  As  Bain  says  in  another  work 
("Emotions  and  Will,"  second  edition,  page  537), 


THE   CLAIM   OF  SCIEXCE.  89 

"  The  foremost  rank  among  the  inductive  tenden- 
cies involved  in  belief  is  to  be  assigned  to  the  natu- 
ral trust  that  we  have  in  the  continuance  of  the 
present  state  of  things."  This  natural  trust  is  not, 
as  Mr.  Mill  would  have  us  believe,  a  mere  generali- 
zation from  experience.  Experience  may  confirm  it, 
but  it  exists  before  experience.  It  is  what  makes 
experience  possible  in  the  first  place,  and  afterward 
shows  it  to  be  applicable. 

But  it  may  be  said  that,  though  there  is  some- 
thing in  this  natural  trust,  this  intuitive  belief,  that 
precedes  the  experience  of  the  individual,  it  does  not 
precede  the  experience  of  the  race ;  that  it  is,  in  fact, 
simply  the  experience  of  our  ancestors,  organized 
within  us.  This  is  what  Herbert  Spencer  and  Lewes 
urge.  But,  should  this  be  established  or  admitted,  it 
would  give  no  sufficient  explanation  to  our  present 
question.  The  question  here  is,  not  about  the  origin 
of  our  belief,  but  about  its  logical  validity.  Grant 
that  the  experience  which  testifies  is  not  merely  that 
of  the  individual,  but  that  of  the  whole  human  race 
from  its  creation,  or,  if  you  please,  that  of  the  still 
longer  line  of  man's  ancestry  from  the  lowest  living 
creature  up  to  the  humanity  of  to-day,  this  is  still 
far  from  sufficient  to  afford  logical  validity  to  belief 
in  universal  uniformitv.  After  even  this  extension 
back  through  all  past  generations  is  given  to  experi- 
ence, the  portion  of  time  and  space  which  it  can  bear 
witness  to  is  but  a  little  corner  in  the  great  field  of 
Nature,  and  the  induction  of  the  premise  still  falls 


90      PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KXOWLEDGE. 

immensely  short  of  the  universality  which  the  con- 
clusion demands.  Unless  Science  acknowledges  that 
its  fundamental  principle  has  no  logical  justification, 
it  must  rest  it  on  the  intuitive  conviction  or  natural 
faith  of  men  in  it,  and  recognize  such  natural  faith 
as  an  ultimate  foundation,  sufficient  as  its  own  evi- 
dence, allowing  nothing  lower  and  needing  nothing 
stronger  beneath.1 

2.  Authority  and  evidence.  Every  religion  leans 
upon  these  more  or  less.  Every  religion  has  its 
founder,  prophet,  or  teacher,  whose  word  it  rev- 
erences. Before  the  disciple  sees  the  truth  of  his 
master's  teaching  by  his  own  mental  sight  or  life- 
experience,  he  accepts  it  as  true ;  presuming  that  it 
is  true  because  he  recognizes  in  his  master  a  knowl- 
edge  and  a  nature  superior  to  his  own.  The  precious 
utterances  of  such  masters  are  collected  in  books, 
which  soon  become  sacred.  Some  Holy  Scripture, 
Bible,  Koran,  or  Yeda,  is  an  heirloom  in  every  form 
of  faith.    Then  comes  the  need  of  evidence  to  prove 

1  The  following  passage  from  Huxley's  address  on  Descartes's  "Dis- 
course," "  Lay  Sermons,"  p.  327,  might  be  quoted  in  confirmation  of 
the  points  so  far  made  :  "  Strictly  speaking,  the  existence  of  a  '  self 
and  of  a  '  not-self  are  hypotheses  by  which  we  account  for  the  facts 
of  consciousness.  They  stand  upon  the  same  footing  as  the  belief  in 
the  general  trustworthiness  of  memory  and  in  the  general  constancy 
of  the  order  of  Nature,  as  hypothetical  assumptions  which  cannot  be 
proved  or  known  with  the  highest  degree  of  certainty  which  is  given 
by  immediate  consciousness."  Although  we  should  prefer  the  name 
41  intuitive  beliefs "  to  "  hypothetical  assumptions,"  yet  the  argu- 
ment for  the  faith-basis  of  science  is  the  same. 


THE  CLAIM  OF  SCIENCE.  91 

the  important  questions  of  its  authenticity  and  gen- 
uineness. The  longer  a  form  of  faith  endures,  and 
the  farther  away  it  gets  from  its  original  fountain, 
the  larger  pl&ce  in  it  do  these  two  elements  natural- 
ly take.  In  Christianity,  especially,  great  stress  has 
been  laid  upon  them.  With  many  it  has  been  an 
undue  stress,  that  neglected  the  internal  evidence 
that  would  still  remain  for  Christianity  though  all 
external  evidence  were  swept  away.  Nevertheless, 
there  is  a  natural  and  proper  place  for  authority  and 
evidence  among  the  proofs  of  the  Christian  religion. 
And  in  science,  too,  there  is  a  similar  need  and 
use  of  these  two  media  of  proof  and  personal  con- 
viction. All  beginners  in  science,  and  the  great 
mass  of  common  people,  have  to  lean  upon  scien- 
tific authorities.1  Some  few  scientific  facts  and  laws 
they  can  observe  or  form  for  themselves.  But  for 
all  the  more  difficult  matter  they  must  trust  some 
one  or  ones  whom  they  believe  to  possess  competent 
knowledge.  For  example,  even  such  a  universally- 
believed  fact  as  the  revolution  of  the  earth  around 
the  sun — there  is  not  one  man  in  ten  thousand  who 
has  mastered  personally  the  proof  of  it,  or  who  is 
able  to  demonstrate  it  to  any  man  wrho  should  de- 

1  "  Authority  is  the  evidence  on  which  the  mass  of  mankind  be- 
lieve every  thing  which  they  are  said  to  know,  except  facts  of  which 
their  own  senses  have  taken  cognizance.  It  is  the  evidence  on  which 
even  the  wisest  receive  all  those  truths  of  science  or  facts  in  history 
or  in  life,  of  which  they  have  not  personally  examined  the  proofs." — 
(John  Stuart  Mill,  "Three  Essays  on  Religion,"  p.  18.  See  also 
Le  Conte,  "Religion  and  Science,"  p.  236.) 


92      PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

elare  himself  a  believer  in  the  old  Ptolemaic  system. 
The  other  nine  thousand  nine  hundred  and  ninety- 
nine  accept  it  as  a  fact  through  their  faith  in  a  few 
astronomers'  assertions. 

Prof.  Henfrey,  in  his  paper  upon  the  "  Study 
of  Botany," 1  takes  pains  to  deny  that  it  is  in- 
-dispensable  for  every  prosecutor  of  natural  history 
to  verify  or  repeat  the  propositions  of  the  abstract 
science ;  "  in  fact,"  he  says,  "  the  enunciation  and 
demonstration  of  them,  which  form  the  great  busi- 
ness of  the  philosophical  botanist,  would  scarcely 
come  within  the  space  of  possibility  for  the  gener- 
ality of  mankind  busied  with  other  matters."  This 
is  equally  true  of  almost  every  other  branch  of  sci- 
ence. If  the  student  of  physical  knowledge  should 
accept  nothing  on  authority,  he  would  spend  his  life 
in  retracing  a  few  hand-breadths  of  early  investiga- 
tion. Progress  is  made  in  science,  as  everywhere 
else,  by  accepting  in  faith  the  results  of  the  past, 
and  making  them  a  platform  on  which  to  mount 
higher.  ]Sot  only  scientific  pupils  must  do  this,  but 
all  beneath  the  very  great  masters ;  and  even  these 
greatest  masters  must  do  so  outside  of  their  own 
specialties.  Even  among  those  who  stand  high  in 
scientific  fame,  how  many,  for  instance,  who  accept 
and  use  the  results  of  Laplace's  "  Mecanique  Ce- 
leste," Faraday's  electrical  discoveries,  Champoll  ion's 
and  Bunsen's  Egyptian  discoveries,  Rawlinson's  and 
Oppert's  decipherment  of  the  cuneiform  inscriptions, 

1  Youmans's  "  Culture  demanded  by  Modern  Life,"  p.  105. 


THE  CLAIM  OF  SCIENCE.  93 

or  William  Thomson's  measurement  of  the  size  of 
molecules,  have  ever  themselves  followed  through 
and  verified  the  steps  by  which  those  results  were 
reached  ? 

Xor  can  science  progress  without  a  similar  trust 
in  and  use  of  evidence.  In  chemistry,  to  be  sure, 
most  facts  can  be  verified  at  any  time  by  experiment. 
But  even  here  it  is  not  more  than  once  or  twice 
that  a  chemist  will  evaporate  forty  tons  of  mineral 
water,  as  Prof.  Bunsen  did,  to  show  in  it  a  little 
csesium.  Chemists,  for  the  most  part,  are  content 
to  take  Bunsen's  testimony  for  it.  In  astronomy, 
the  eternal  stars  generally  allow  instant  verification 
of  observation  at  any  time.  But  for  transient  and 
exceptional  facts,  the  testimony  of  a  few,  perhaps  of 
a  single  observer,  has  to  be  relied  upon.  And  it  is 
relied  upon,  though  the  facts  often  are  in  apparent 
contradiction  to  the  usual  order  of  Nature.  When 
Tycho  Brahe  relates  that  he  one  night  saw  a  star 
flash  forth  in  great  brilliancy  in  the  constellation  of 
Cassiopeia  ;  or  Prof.  Young  describes  immense  erup- 
tions upon  the  surface  of  the  sun  as  witnessed  by 
him ;  or  some  other  observer  at  a  remote  point  of 
the  earth  tells  of  an  eclipse  seen  only  there,  science 
confidently  accepts  their  evidence.  So,  for  the  dates 
of  ancient  eclipses  and  planetary  conjunctions,  the 
occurrence  of  meteoric  showers  and  the  appearances 
of  comets  in  former  times,  astronomers  rely  upon  an- 
cient records  whose  authenticity  and  genuineness  are, 
to  say  the  least,  no  more  sure  than  those  of  the  first 


94      PHYSICAL   AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

three  gospels  or  the  Pauline  Epistles.  This  method 
of  comparing  present  observations  with  former  ones 
is  a  frequent  one  with  astronomers,  and  their  main 
resource  in  determining  exactly  the  length  of  the  day, 
the  year,  and  other  natural  constants.  Hipparchus 
made  the  first  clear  application  of  it,  it  is  said,  when 
he  compared  his  own  observations  with  those  of  Aris- 
tarchus,  made  one  hundred  and  forty -five  years  pre- 
viously. Laplace,  in  explaining  the  long  inequality 
in  the  motions  of  Jupiter  and  Saturn,  was  much  as- 
sisted by  a  conjunction  of  these  planets  observed  by 
Ibyn  Jounis,  at  Cairo,  toward  the  close  of  the  elev- 
enth century.  Poisson,  by  making  use  of  an  ancient 
eclipse  recorded  by  the  Chaldeans,  was  supposed  to 
have  proved  that  the  sidereal  day  had  not  altered 
one  ten-millionth  part  in  twenty-five  hundred  years. 
Similar  calculations  were  made  by  Laplace.  It  is 
now  concluded,  however,  that  the  sidereal  day  is 
longer  by  one  part  in  two  million  seven  hundred 
thousand  than  in  720  b.  c.  All  these  calculations, 
of  course,  assume  the  trustworthiness  of  ancient 
records. 

In  geology,  botany,  zoology,  also,  the  man  who 
will  believe  nothing  but  what  he  has  seen  with  his 
own  eyes  will  learn  very  little.  Xo  one  observer 
can  personally  observe  a  thousandth  part  of  the  phe- 
nomena which  constitute  the  accepted  stock  of  scien- 
tific knowledge.  At  most,  he  can  but  scan  a  hortus 
siccus,  or  museums  of  minerals,  shells,  skeletons,  and 
stuffed  specimens.     For  the  original  locality  and  po- 


THE  CLAIM  OF  SCIEXCE.  95 

sition  of  strata,  for  the  living  appearance,  habits,  and 
homes  of  the  various  species,  and  for  the  whole  ac- 
count of  the  fauna  and  flora  of  remote  countries  not 
yet  illustrated  by  accessible  specimens,  the  man  of 
science  must  depend  upon  the  reports  of  travelers, 
often  no  more  in  number  than,  nor  so  close  in  agree- 
ment as,  the  Four  Evangelists.  They  bring  back 
reports  of  glass  sponges,  and  animals  with  eyes 
brought  up  from  the  rayless  and  plantless  depths  of 
the  sea,  as  in  the  recent  dredging  expeditions.  They 
give  us  accounts  of  fossil  horses,  no  bigger  than  a  fox ; 
of  veritable  dragons,  the  winged-fingered  pterodac- 
tyles,  twenty-five  feet  from  tip  to  tip ;  of  birds  with 
well-developed  teeth  in  both  jaws,  and  of  fish  with 
legs ;  of  sea-serpents,  the  sauroid  reptiles  of  the  Cre- 
taceous period,  over  seventy  feet  in  length — as  Prof. 
Marsh's  expeditions  have  done.  They  tell  us  of  a 
race  of  dwarfs  and  other  marvels,  as  Schweinfurth 
has  done  ;  they  recount  every  day  new  wonder  after 
wonder,  just  as  much  opposed  to  general  experience 
as  any  thing  in  the  doctrines  and  accounts  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  the  scientific  world  receives  their  narra- 
tives with  full  credence.  Certainly,  scientific  men 
should  be  the  last  to  refuse  as  credible  the  testimony 
of  honest  eye-witnesses  simply  because  their  narra- 
tives contain  some  marvelous  details. 

3.   Analogy,  hypothesis,   and  various  kinds   of 
merely  probable  inference. 

Keligion,  it  is  true,  often  uses  these  in  support 
of  the  doctrines  it  advances.     It  employs  the  argu- 


96      PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

ment  from  analogy,  for  example,  in  proof  of  the  fu 
ture  life  of  the  soul.  Every  atom  of  matter,  it  says 
is  believed  by  Science  to  be  absolutely  indestructi- 
ble. So  also  is  every  smallest  quantity  of  force.  If 
these  other  units,  if  all  the  rest  of  the  force  in  the 
universe  is  thus  able  to  survive  the  shocks  of  change, 
if  all  else  is  thus  carefully  guarded  by  Nature  from 
destruction,  is  it  likely  that  the  intelligent  soul,  the 
conscious  unit,  the  spiritual  force  which  is  the  most 
exalted  of  all  earthly  things,  perishes  at  the  end  of 
this  short  life  ? 

Again,  every  order  of  organized  sentient  being 
below  man  has  a  sphere  of  development  and  action 
commensurate  with  its  capacities.  Unless  man  be 
a  solitary  exception  to  the  general  order,  he  must 
also  have  such  a  sphere.  But  it  is  evident  that  in 
this  hand-breadth  of  earth  and  earthly  life  his  vast 
capacities  and  desires  cannot  fulfill  themselves.  If 
his  chances  of  development  are  like  those  of  his 
fellow-creatures,  he  must  have  an  existence  here- 
after to  give  the  opportunities  not  supplied  here. 

jSTow,  whether  these  analogies  be  considered  as 
supplying  logical  proof  or  not,  they  are  just  such  as 
Science  uses. 

Science  asserts  with  entire  confidence  the  exist- 
ence of  this  and  that  chemical  element  in  the  heav- 
enly bodies,  iron  and  sodium  in  the  atmosphere  of 
the  sun,  Sirius,  and  other  stars ;  blazing  hydrogen 
gas  in  the  dumb-bell  nebula  and  other  irresolvable 
nebulse.     How  does  it  know  any  one  of  these  facts, 


THE  CLAIM  OF  SCIENCE.  97 

say  the  last  ?  Simply  by  the  fact  that  objects  on  the 
earth  presenting  the  same  spectroscopic  lines  are 
hydrogen.  As  the  nebula  presents  these  lines,  it  is 
inferred  to  be  of  the  same  constitution  in  other  re- 
spects also.  It  is  by  a  like  analogical  argument  that 
the  white  spots  at  the  poles  of  Mars  are  believed  by 
scientific  men  to  be  snow,  that  the  fossil  skeletons 
found  in  the  earth  are  held  to  have  once  belonged  to 
living  animals,  and  that  the  likenesses  of  composition 
and  growth  which  language  and  geological  strata 
exhibit,  teach  us  their  history  and  origin.1 

1  In  Dr.  W.  B.  Carpenter's  "  Inaugural  Address  before  the  British 
Association  for  the  Advancement  of  Science,"  at  Brighton,  1872, 
I  have,  since  writing  the  above,  found  the  following  confirmatory  pas- 
sage :  "  Mr.  Lockyer  speaks  as  confidently  of  the  sun's  chromosphere, 
of  incandescent  hydrogen,  and  of  the  local  outbursts  which  cause  it 
to  send  forth  projections  tens  of  thousands  of  miles  high,  as  if  he 
had  been  able  to  capture  a  flask  of  this  gas,  and  had  generated  water 
by  causing  it  to  unite  with  oxygen.  Yet  this  confidence  is  entirely 
based  on  the  assumption  that  a  certain  line  which  is  seen  in  the 
spectrum  of  a  hydrogen-flame,  means  hydrogen  also  when  seen  in  the 
spectrum  of  the  sun's  chromosphere ;  and  high  as  is  the  probability 
of  that  assumption,  it  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  demonstrated  certain-  * 
ty,  since  it  is  by  no  means  inconceivable  that  the  same  line  might  be 
produced  by  some  other  substance  at  present  unknown." 

From  Prof.  Whitney  we  extract  the  following  in  regard  to  the 
use  of  analogy  in  philology :  "  So  far  back  as  we  can  trace  the  his- 
tory of  language,  the  forces  which  have  been  efficient  in  producing 
its  changes  and  the  general  outline  of  their  modes  of  operation,  have 
been  the  same,  and  we  are  justified  in  concluding — we  are  even  com- 
pelled to  infer — that  they  have  been  the  same  from  the  outset.  There 
is  no  way  of  investigating  the  first  hidden  steps  of  any  continuous 
historical  process,  except  by  carefully  studying  the  later  recorded 
steps  and  cautiously  applying  the  analogies  thence  deduced.  So  the 
5 


98      PHYSICAL   AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

Of  course,  the  knowledge  derived  in  this  way, 
whether  by  science  or  religion,  is  but  inferential, 
and,  moreover,  merely  probable.  He  must  be  very 
ignorant  of  Science  who  reproaches  Religion  with 
the  employment  of  inference  or  merely  probable  ar- 
guments, as  if  she  alone  were  a  sinner,  or  guilty 
above  her  physical  sister.  Science  is  as  much  the 
daughter  of  reason  as  of  the  senses.  If  the  first 
step  in  induction  is  observation,  the  second  is  al- 
ways what  inference  the  observations  justify.  It  is 
from  this  point  of  view  that  Herbert  Spencer  gives 
as  one  definition  of  science,  "  an  extension  of  the 
perceptions  by  means  of  reasoning"  ("Recent  Dis- 
cussions," p.  160).  Observed  facts  do  not  deserve  the 
name  of  science  until  they  have  been  arranged  by 
the  magnet  of  some  idea  and  marshaled  in  the  on- 
ward column  of  some  argument.  "  Isolated  facts 
and  experiments,"  says  Helmholtz,  in  his  lecture 
upon  the  "Aim  and  Progress  of  Physical  Science" 
("  Popular  Lectures  on  Scientific  Subjects,"  p.  369), 
"  have  in  themselves  no  value,  however  great  their 
number  may  be.     They  only  become  valuable  in  a 

geologist  studies  the  forces  which  are  now  altering  by  slow  degrees 
the  form  and  aspect  of  the  earth's  crust,  wearing  down  the  rocks 
here,  depositing  beds  of  sand  and  pebbles  there,  pouring  out  floods 
of  lava  over  certain  regions,  raising  or  lowering  the  line  of  coast 
along  certain  seas ;  and  he  applies  the  result  of  his  observations 
with  confidence  to  the  explanation  of  phenomena  dating  from  a  time 
to  which  men's  imaginations,  even,  can  hardly  reach.  The  legiti- 
macy of  the  analogical  reasoning  is  not  less  undeniable  in  the  one 
case  than  in  the  other." — (Whitney's  "  Language  and  the  Study  of 
Language,"  p.  253.) 


THE  CLAIM  OF  SCIENCE.  99 

theoretical  or  practical  point  of  view,  when  they 
make  us  acquainted  with  the  law  of  a  series  of  uni- 
formly-recurring phenomena ;  it  may  be,  only  give  a 
negative  result,  showing  an  incompleteness  in  our 
knowledge  of  such  a  law,  till  then  held  to  be  per- 
fect. ...  To  find  the  law  by  which  they  are  regu- 
lated is  to  understand  phenomena." 

Science,  then,  supplies  no  valuable  knowledge 
till  its  crude  facts  are  crystallized  by  inferences,  and 
built  up  into  conclusions.  And  it  is  rare,  in  physical 
investigations,  that  these  conclusions  are  more  than 
probable.  There  are  some  cases,  of  course,  where 
our  investigation  may  be  made  exhaustive.  Such 
are  the  cases  where  our  inquiry  is  limited  to  a  small 
class,  a  definite  portion  of  matter,  a  moderate  extent 
of  time  or  area  of  space.  But  in  almost  all  cases, 
not  alone  in  analogical  reasoning,  but  in  the  best 
inductions,  in  all  those  which  much  advance  knowl- 
edge, our  conclusions  must  pass  beyond  the  narrow 
confines  of  our  data.  "In  natural  history,"  says 
Prof.  Henfrey,1  "it  is  rarely  in  our  power  to  ascer- 
tain all  the  particulars  requisite  for  any  given  induc- 
tion ;  it  is  scarcely  ever  possible  to  use  this  demon- 
strative induction.  We  are  continually  obliged  to 
derive  a  general  consequence  from  a  portion  of  the 
particular  cases  which  it  ought  to  rest  upon,  and  in 
such  cases  we  anticipate  the  agreement  of  the  rest, 
basing  the  hypothesis  upon  analogy.     In  this  way 

1  "The  Study  of  Botany,"  Youmans's  "Culture  demanded  by 
Modern  Life." 


100    PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

we  arrive,  not  at  absolute  certainties,  but  at  great 
probabilities."  Similarly  says  Prof.  Youmans,  now 
the  editor  of  The  Popular  Science  Monthly^  speak- 
ing of  the  study  of  biology,1  "  Complete  or  demon- 
strative induction  being  impossible,  we  are  com- 
pelled to  form  conclusions  from  only  a  part  of  the 
facts  involved,  and  to  anticipate  the  agreement  of 
the  rest."*  So,  also,  says  Prof.  De  Morgan,  speak- 
ing of  induction  :  "  Since  it  is  practically  impossible 
to  examine  all  particulars,  the  statement  of  a  univer- 
sal from  its  particulars  is  only  probable,  unless  it 
should  happen  that  we  can  detect  some  law  connect- 
ing the  instances  by  which  the  result  when  obtained 
as  to  a  certain  number  may  be  inferred  as  to  the  rest. 
.  .  .  This  induction  by  connection  is  common  enough 
in  mathematics,  but  can  hardly  occur  in  any  other 
kind  of  knowledge." 

TTkenever  we  get  a  clear  idea  of  the  vast  num- 
bers of  permutations  and  combinations  which  may 
be  possible  with  no  very  great  number  of  various 
agents  or  conditions,  we  learn  how  hopeless  it  would 
be  to  attempt  to  treat  Xature  in  detail,  and  make  ex- 
haustive inductions.  It  has  been  recommended,  for 
example,  that  a  systematic  examination  of  all  alloys 
of  metals  should  be  carried  out,  proceeding  from  the 
most  simple  binary  compounds  to  the  more  compli- 
cated ternary  and  quaternary  ones.  But  if  only 
thirty  of  the  known  metals  were  operated  upon,  the 
number  of  binary  alloys,  it  is  calculated,  would  be 

1  "  Culture  demanded  by  Modern  Life,"  p.  34. 


THE  CLAIM  OF  SCIEXCE.  101 

435,  of  ternary  alloys  -1,060,  of  quaternary  27,405, 
without  paying  any  regard  to  the  varying  propor- 
tions of  the  metals.  If  we  varied  all  the  ternary  al- 
loys by  quantities  not  less  than  one  per  cent.,  the  num- 
ber of  these  alloys  only  would  be  over  11,000,000. 
So  also  in  regard  to  the  possible  chemical  combina- 
tions. Taking  the  number  of  elements  at  sixty-one, 
the  number  of  compounds  containing  different  se- 
lections of  four  elements  each  would  be  more  than 
half  a  million.  As  the  same  elements  often  com- 
bine in  different  proportions,  it  would  hardly  be  pos- 
sible to  assign  any  limit  to  the  possible  compounds 
that  chemistry  can  furnish.  Under  such  circum- 
stances, it  is  inevitable  that  induction  should  never 
give  more  than  incomplete  knowledge.1 

In  regard  to  political  science,  John  Stuart  Mill, 
in  his  inaugural  address,  as  Rector  of  the  University 
of  St.  Andrew's,  said :  "  It  is  evident,  to  whoever 
comes  to  the  study  from  that  of  the  experimental 
sciences,  that  no  political  conclusions  of  any  value 
for  practice  can  be  arrived  at  by  direct  experience. 
Such  specific  experience  as  we  can  have  serves  only 
to  verify,  and  even  that  insufficiently,  the  conclu- 
sions of  reasoning.  .  .  .  All  true  political  science  is, 
in  one  sense  of  the  phrase,  a  priori,  being  deduced 
from  the  tendencies  of  things,  tendencies  known 
either  through  our  general  experience  of  human  na- 
ture, or  as  the  result  of  an  analysis  of  the  course  of 
history  considered  as  a  progressive  evolution." 

1  Jevons,  vol.  i.,  p.  218. 


102    PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

The  same  is  true  of  the  other  sciences,  and  espe- 
cially of  the  great  natural  laws.  The  law  of  gravi- 
itj,  for  example,  has  never  been  proved  by  any  ex- 
haustive induction.  Only  a  small  portion  of  terres- 
trial matter,  and  a  few  of  the  myriad  stars  of  heaven, 
have  been  tested  as  conforming  to  it.  The  first  law 
of  motion  that  "  every  body  continues  in  its  state  of 
rest  or  of  uniform  motion  in  a  straight  line,  except 
in  so  far  as  it  may  be  compelled  by  impressed  forces 
to  change  that  state,"  can  never  be  proved  by  induc- 
tion. That  a  real  body  should  move  uniformly  in  a 
straight  line,  is  contrary  to  all  observation.  It  not 
only  has  never  been  seen,  but  can  never  be  seen. 
As  Lewes  says,  "  No  such  phenomenon  could  pre- 
sent itself  in  a  universe  like  ours,  where  motion  is 
always  accelerated  or  retarded,  and  always  more  or 
less  divergent  from  a  straight  line." 

The  same  is  true  of  the  conservation  of  energy. 
All  the  inductive  proof  that  can  be  given  of  it  is 
only  approximative.  There  is  always  a  certain  dis- 
crepance between  the  sum  of  force  we  start  with  in 
one  form,  such  as  heat,  and  the  sum  we  recover  in 
another  form,  such  as  motion.  This  discrepance,  in 
careful  experiments,  may  be  very  slight.  By  still 
greater  care  it  may  be  made  so  infinitesimal  that  in 
practice  it  maybe  disregarded.  But  the  discrepance 
is  always  there,  and,  however  close  we  may  approach 
to  an  absolute  equivalence,  we  can  never  attain  it. 
As  Jevons  says,1  "  The  most  that  we  can  do  by  experi- 

1  Vol.  ii.,  p.  83. 


THE  CLAIM  OF  SCIENCE.  1Q3 

ment  is,  to  show  that  the  energy  entering  into  any  ex- 
perimental combination  is  almost  exactly  equal  to 
what  comes  out  of  it,  and  the  more  nearly  so-,  the 
more  exactly  we  perform  all  the  measurements.  Ab- 
solute equality  is  always  a  matter  of  assumption." 
Long  before  we  reach  that  point,  the  thread  we  are 
tracing  grows  so  fine  as  no  longer  to  be  held  by  our 
fingers.  Should  some  minute  part  of  it  vanish,  we 
could  not  detect  the  loss.  The  cogency  granted  to 
the  scientific  proof  of  either  the  first  law  of  motion, 
or  the  conservation  of  energy,  or  the  indestructibility 
of  matter  or  force,  depends  upon  the  experience  that, 
the  farther  we  extend  our  observation,  the  more  deli- 
cate we  make  our  tests,  and  exclude  disturbing  con- 
ditions, the  nearer  we  come  to  the  realization  of  the 
law.1  It  is  but  the  same  kind  of  approximative  evi- 
dence which  religion  brings  to  show  the  benevolence 
and  providence  of  God.  As  we  understand  Nature 
and  human  events  more  and  more  thoroughly,  we 
find  more  and  more  that  every  thing  is  good. 

The  fact  is,  as  Stanley  Jevons  says,2  "  not  one  of 
the  inductive  truths  which  men  have  established,  or 
think  they  have  established,  is  really  safe  from  ex- 
ception or  reversal. .  .  .  Euler  expresses  no  more  than 
the  truth  when  he  says  that  it  would  be  impossible 
to  fix  on  any  one  thing  really  existing  of  which  we 
could  have  so  perfect  a  knowledge  as  to  put  us  be- 
yond the  reach  of  mistake/'     Though  we  have  ob- 

1  Jevons,  vol.  ii.,  p.  271. 

2  "Principles  of  Science,"  vol.  i.,  p.  274. 


104    PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

served  ten  thousand  swans  to  be  white,  it  does  not  fol- 
low but  what  the  next  swan  may  be  black.  Though 
we  have  observed  flame  to  burn  a  hundred  million 
times,  it  does  not  follow  but  what  the  next  time  it 
may  not — the  law  ruling  it  being  a  change-bearing 
one,  such  as  Babbage  made  in  one  of  his  calculating- 
machines,  or  some  unsuspected  cause  being  in  exist- 
ence which  may  produce  a  different  effect.1     "  The 

1  Few,  probably,  are  aware  how  large  a  number  of  examples  of 
these  change-bearing  laws  and  exceptions  to  what  has  been  supposed 
universal  uniformities,  have  been  disclosed  by  recent  science. 

The  expansion  of  solids  and  liquids  by  heat,  and  their  contraction 
by  cold,  is  a  law  so  general  and  intimately  connected  with  the  very 
theory  of  heat,  that  it  would  seem  as  if  a  real  anomaly  to  it  ought 
not  to  be  expected.  Indeed,  for  a  long  time  no  exception  was  ob- 
served. But  modern  researches  have  disclosed  the  fact  that  stretched 
India-rubber  and  a  few  other  solids  contract,  instead  of  expanding, 
by  heat,  and  that  water,  though  conforming  to  the  usual  law  from 
212°  Fahr.  down  to  39^°,  then  changes,  and  from  39|°  to  its  freezing- 
point  expands  with  the  increase  of  cold. 

Again,  it  is  one  of  the  most  important  and  rigorous  laws  of  chem- 
istry that  equal  volumes  of  gases  exactly  correspond  to  equivalent 
weights  of  the  substances.  Unfortunately,  phosphorus  and  arsenic 
give  vapors  exactly  twice  as  dense  as  they  should  do  by  analogy,  and 
mercury  and  cadmium  diverge  in  the  other  direction,  giving  vapors 
half  as  dense  as  we  should  expect.  Physicists  assert  again,  as  an 
absolutely  universal  law,  that  in  liquefaction  heat  is  absorbed,  yet 
Bulphur  is,  at  least,  an  apparent  exception.  Until  a  recent  discovery 
of  Mr.  Hermann  Smith,  all  our  knowledge  of  rods  and  strings,  plates 
and  membranes,  had  agreed  in  the  law  of  isochronism — that,  however 
the  amplitude  may  vary,  the  times  of  vibration  will  be  the  same. 
But  in  the  so-called  "  air-reed,"  into  which  the  stream  of  air  is  mould- 
ed in  the  embouchure  of  an  organ-pipe,  an  absolute  reversal  of  this 
is  exhibited.     (See  Nature,  1874,  vol.  x.,  p.  161.) 

A  multitude  of  further  similar  cases  might  be  quoted.     The  num. 


THE  CLAIM  OF  SCIEXCE.  1Q5 

conclusions  of  scientific  inference,"  to  quote  Jevons 
again,1  "  appear  to  be  always  of  an  hypothetical  and 
purely  provisional  nature.  The  best-calculated  re- 
sults which  it  can  give  are  never  absolute  probabili- 
ties; they  are  purely  relative  to  the  extent  of  our 
information.  It  seems  to  be  impossible  for  us  to 
judge  how  far  our  experience  gives  us  adequate 
information  of  the  universe  as  a  whole,  and  of  all 
the  forces  and  phenomena  which  can  have  place 
therein."  2 

To  the  same  effect  I  may  quote,  from  the  oppo- 
site side  of  the  philosophical  camp,  the  declarations 
of  Taine  and  Lewes.  Speaking  of  the  laws  of  real 
things  gained  by  induction,  Taine  says  :  "  However 
well-established  and  verified  one  of  these  laws  may 
be,  if  we  wish  to  apply  it  outside  of  the  little  circle 
of  space  and  short  fragment  of  duration  to  which 
our  observations  are  limited,  it  becomes  probable 
only.  It  is  not  absolutely  certain  that  the  law  of 
gravitation  continues  to  hold  good  beyond  the  far- 
thest nebulee  of  Herschel.  It  is  not  at  all  certain 
that,  in  the  sun,  oxygen  and  hydrogen  preserve  the 

ber  of  them,  in  fact,  is  so  great,  that  Jevons  declares  that  "  it  would 
be  easy  to  point  out  an  almost  infinite  number  of  other  unexplained 
anomalies." — ("Principles  of  Science,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  341.) 

1  "Principles  of  Science,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  465. 

2  The  passages  quoted  from  Jevons  are  but  two  out  of  a  dozen 
similar  passages  that  might  be  quoted,  in  which  the  merely  probable 
nature  of  scientific  conclusions  is  emphatically  affirmed.  (See  vol.  i., 
pp.  3,  265,  271,  275 ;  vol.  ii.,  pp.  429,  432,  443,  459.) 


106    PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 
chemical  affinity  which  we  find  they  have  here  with 


us."  ' 


"  In  this  assumption,"  says  Lewes,  "  of  an  iden- 
tity amid  diversity,  this  inference,  that  what  has 
been  found  to  coexist  with  certain  characters  will  be 
found  elsewhere  to  coexist  with  similar  characters, 
lies  the  whole  reach  of  induction.  .  .  .  Consequent- 
ly, induction  can  never  be  more  than  a  more  or  less 
probable  guess.  It  is  not  knowledge  till  it  ceases  to 
be  inductive  by  the  verification  of  each  of  its  applied 
inferences."  2 

The  Gordian  knots  of  existence  not  allowing 
themselves  thus  to  be  untied  by  any  complete  induc- 
tions, they  must  be  severed  in  some  more  summary 
way.  Religion  does  so  by  its  grand  hypotheses  of 
God  and  soul — for  they  are  in  a  certain  sense  hy- 
potheses— transcending  at  first,  nay,  transcending 
forever,  the  sweep  of  any  possible  induction.  Tor 
thus  resorting  to  hypotheses  Religion  has  always  been 
reproached,  and  it  has  had  commended  to  it  the  Ba- 
conian method  of  laborious  accumulation  of  facts, 
and  careful  and  orderly  abstraction  from  them  of 
general  axioms  or  laws.  It  has  been  reminded  of 
Newton's  warning  against  "  anticipations."  It  has 
been  admonished  to  recall  the  similar  scholium  of 
the  great  philosopher,  "Whatever  is  not  deduced 
from  the  phenomena  is  to  be  called  an  hypothesis, 

1  "  On  Intelligence,"  p.  426. 

2  G.  H.  Lewes's  "  Problems  of  Life  and  Mind,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  159. 


THE  CLAIM  OF  SCIENCE.  107 

and  hypotheses,  whether  metaphysical  or  physical, 
have  no  place  in  experimental  philosophy."  But,  in 
point  of  fact,  it  is  just  this  procedure  of  anticipating 
Nature,  of  framing  hypotheses,  which  has  yielded 
all  the  more  lofty  and  successful  results  of  science. 
"  Those  who  have  most  advanced  the  natural  science 
since  Bacon's  day,"  says  Prof.  Henfrey,  "have  de- 
parted from  the  rigorous  method  of  induction,  and 
by  this  alone  rendered  possible  the  rapid  progress 
of  the  sciences."  To  the  same  effect,  says  Prof. 
Jevons,1  "  whether  we  look  to  Galileo  and  Gilbert, 
his  contemporaries,  or  to  Newton  and  Descartes,  his 
successors,  we  find  that  discovery  was  achieved  by 
the  exactly  opposite  method  to  that  advanced  by 
Bacon."  In  spite  of  Newton's  condemnation  of 
hypotheses,  "  the  greater  part  of  his  '  Principia,' 
says  Prof.  Jevons,  "is  purely  hypothetical."  His 
practice  is  the  most  splendid  vindication  of  their 
use.  Huyghens's  brilliant  achievements  were  gained 
bv  the  same  means. 

The  history  of  the  inductive  sciences,  to  quote 
the  words  of  Whewell,  "  is  the  rise  of  theories  out 
of  facts  and  the  passing  of  theories  into  facts."  La- 
place's, Darwin's,  Spencer's  great  scientific  achieve- 
ments are  all  hypotheses.2  Geology,  paleontology, 
archaeology,  are  all  built  up  by  hypotheses.  These 
sciences  are  but  the  interpretations  we  have  guessed 

1  Fortnightly  Review,  1873,  p.  ?80. 

8  "  Tyndall's  Fragments  of  Science,"  pp.  155-159. 


108    PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

for  a  few  of  Nature's  infinite  hieroglyphics.  "  Nei- 
ther induction  nor  deduction,"  Auguste  Comte  him- 
self has  said,  "  would  enable  us  to  understand  even  the 
simplest  phenomena,  if  we  did  not  often  commence 
by  anticipation  on  the  results ;  "  and  in  his  discourse 
delivered  before  the  British  Association  in  Liver- 
pool, in  1870,  Prof.  Tyndall  has  urged  upon  his  sci- 
entific comrades  the  importance  of  the  imagination 
as  the  mightiest  instrument  of  physical  investiga- 
tion, and  indicates  as  the  organ  that  is  finally  to 
solve  the  ultimate  problems  of  physics,  "  spiritual 
insight."  "  Bounded  and  conditioned  by  cooperant 
reason"  savs  Tvndall,  " imagination  becomes  the 
mightiest  instrument  of  the  physical  discoverer. 
Newton's  passage  from  a  falling  apple  to  a  falling 
moon  was  at  the  outset  a  leap  of  the  imagination. 
When  William  Thomson  tries  to  place  the  ultimate 
particles  of  matter  between  his  compass-points,  and 
to  apply  to  them  a  scale  of  millimetres,  he  is  power- 
fully aided  by  this  faculty.  And  in  much  that  has 
been  recently  said  about  protoplasm  and  life,  we 
have  the  outgoings  of  the  imagination  guided  and 
controlled  by  the  known  analogies  of  science.  In 
fact,  without  this  power,  our  knowledge  of  Nature 
would  be  a  mere  tabulation  of  coexistences  and  se- 
quences. We  should  still  believe  in  the  succession  of 
day  and  night,  of  summer  and  winter ;  but  the  soul 
of  Force  would  be  dislodged  from  our  universe  ; 
causal  relations  would  disappear,  and  with  them  that 
science  which  is  now  building  the  parts  of  Nature 


THE  CLAIM  OF  SCIENCE.  109 

into  an  organic  whole." x  It  needs  hardly  to  be  re- 
marked, that  hypotheses,  imagination,  insight,  are 
but  secular  names  for  the  action  and  faculty  which, 
under  the  standard  of  Religion,  are  so  much  scoffed 
at  as  "faith." 

4.  But  scientific  faith,  it  will  be  said,  legitimates 
itself  by  the  test  of  verification.  Religious  faith 
does  not.  It  is  the  bringing  of  its  doctrines,  by 
whatever  argument  supported,  whether  by  intuition, 
authority,  evidence,  analogy,  or  hypotheses,  square- 
ly up  to  the  test  of  verification  as  a  final  and  deci- 
sive test,  that  justifies  these  methods  in  the  hands  of 
Science.  And  it  is  the  disuse  of  this  test  by  Religion 
that  in  her  hands  renders  them  suspicious.  Xow,  on 
the  one  hand,  Religion,  as  I  shall  show  further  on,  is 
able  to  confirm  its  fundamental  propositions  by  veri- 
fications similar  to  those  employed  by  Science.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  doctrines  of  science,  even  those 

1  "Fragments  of  Science,"  p.  130. 

The  editor  of  The  Popular  Science  Monthly,  for  March,  1875, 
in  answer  to  a  criticism  upon  Tyndall,  for  this  use  of  mental  pictur- 
ing in  science,  says  :  "  Our  writer  says  that  '  Science  starts  with 
observation  and  experiment ; '  but  the  real  starting-point  is  farther 
back.  A  mental  representation  must  be  made  before  it  can  be 
verified.  A  certain  state  of  things  is  conceived  or  put  together  in 
thought,  and  is  called  an  hypothesis ;  and  then  observation  and  ex- 
periment are  appealed  to,  to  test  the  correctness  of  the  representation, 
the  truthfulness  of  the  mental  picture.  Science  is  not  merely  seeing 
with  the  eye,  or  fumbling  with  instruments.  Any  blockhead  can  do 
these ;  but  it  is  to  reconstruct  Nature  in  thought.  ...  To  do  this 
the  imagination  or  image-forming  faculty  comes  into  incessant  play." 
(p.  621.) 


HO    PHYSICAL  AXD  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

generally  accepted,  are  in  many  cases  destitute  of 
any  proper  verification. 

For  instance :  The  fundamental  law  in  pneu- 
matics, that,  where  gases  are  allowed  to  mix,  every 
_  -  is  in  a  constant  state  of  diffusion  of  every  part 
into  every  part,  cannot  be  verified  by  observation ; 
for  in  very  many  if  not  most  cases  the  portions  of 
_  ses,  or  the  different  gases,  cannot  be  followed 
and  identified.  One  atom  of  oxygen,  for  example, 
is  practically  undistinguishable  from  another  atom. 
Only  by  keeping  a  certain  volume  of  gas  safely 
inclosed  in  a  bottle  can  we  assure  ourselves  of  its 
entity.  Allow  it  to  mix  with  other  oxvo^en,  and 
we  have  lost  all  power  of  identification. 

The  results  of  celestial  spectroscopy,  based  as  we 
have  seen  them  to  be  on  analo<rv,  allow  no  means  of 
verification.  For  the  assumptions  underlying  them 
— that  substances  on  celestial  bodies  vibrate  exactly 

■ 

as  substances  on  the  earth,  and  that  some  different 
substance,  either  a  known  or  an  unknown  one,  cannot 
have  svnehronous  vibrations  with  the  substance  ob- 
-  rved  here  to  have  these  vibrations — can  never  be 
established.  Should  either  assumption  be  reasona- 
bly suspected  to  be  erroneous,  as  the  last  already  has 
en  by  Prof.  Young,  from  certain  phenomena,  the 
whole  superstructure  would  fall  with  it. 

Social  science,  as  John  Stuart  Mill  has  pointed 
out,1  is  incapable  of  direct  verification.  The  nebular 
and  the  development  hypotheses,  and  all  the  accounts 

System  of  Logic,"  Book  VI.,  Chapter  IX.,  Sec.  6. 


THE   CLAIM   OF  SCIENCE.  \\\ 

of  the  past  history  of  the  universe,  in  the  astronomi- 
cal, geological,  or  biological  departments,  are  incapa- 
ble of  direct  verification.1    Xone  of  these  events  have 

1  In  TyndalTs  "  Belfast  Address,''  he  speaks  of  the  provability 
of  the  doctrine  of  evolution  as  follows  :  "  The  strength  of  the  doc- 
trine of  evolution  consists,  not  in  an  experimental  demonstration  (for 
the  subject  is  hardly  accessible  to  this  mode  of  proof),  but  in  its  gen- 
eral harmony  with  the  method  of  Nature  as  hitherto  known." 

George  H.  Lewes  speaks  of  the  two  hypotheses  of  the  origin  of 
life,  that  of  creation  and  that  of  natural  selection,  as  follow? :  ta  Both 
these  hypotheses  of  origin  must  always  remain  hypotheses.  Knowl- 
edge of  what  things  are  under  observed  conditions  may  be  absolute ; 
it  can  never  lead  to  more  than  hypothetical  statements  of  what  things 
were  under  other  conditions ;  and  since  it  is  manifestly  impossible 
that  we  should  ever  know  what  were  the  exact  conditions  under 
which  organic  life  emerged,  we  can  do  no  more  than  guess  at  ori- 
gins."— ("  Problems  of  Life  and  Mind,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  76.) 

Still  more  emphatic  is  the  testimony  of  Prof.  Huxley.  Speaking 
of  the  animal  pedigree  assigned  to  man  by  Darwin  and  Haeckel,  he 
says  :  "  It  need  hardly  be  said  that,  in  dealing  with  such  a  problem 
as  this,  Science  rapidly  passes  beyond  the  bounds  of  positive,  verifi- 
able fact,  and  enters  those  of  more  or  less  justifiable  speculation.  But 
there  are  very  few  scientific  problems,  even  of  those  which  have  been 
and  are  being  most  successfully  solved,  which  have  been  or  can  be 
approached  in  any  other  way. 

"  Our  views  respecting  the  nature  of  the  planets,  of  the  sun  and 
stars,  are  speculations  which  are  not  and  cannot  be  directly  verified ; 
that  great  instrument  of  research,  the  atomic  hypothesis,  is  a  specu- 
lation which  cannot  be  directly  verified ;  the  statement  that  an  ex- 
tinct animal,  of  which  we  know  only  the  skeleton,  and  never  can  know 
anv  more,  had  a  heart  and  lungs,  and  gave  birth  to  young  which  were 
developed  in  such  and  such  a  fashion,  may  be  one  which  admits  of 
no  reasonable  doubt,  but  it  is  an  unverifiable  hypothesis.  I  may  be 
as  sure  as  I  can  be  of  any  thing  that  I  had  a  thought,  yesterday  morn- 
ing, which  I  took  care  neither  to  utter  nor  to  write  down,  but  my  con- 
viction is  an  utterly  unverifiable  hypothesis.     So  that  unverified  and 


112    PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

ever  been  tested  by  observation,  or  can  ever  hence- 
forth be  tested  by  observation.  What  physicist  stood 
by  and  saw  the  glowing  gas  condense  into  sun  and 
planets?  What  savant  watched  the  annulosa  de- 
velop the  primordial  vertebrate ;  the  amphibia  the 
mammal ;  the  mammal  the  man  ?  What  man  of  to- 
day looked  on  the  dry  land  uniting  England  with 
France,  or  the  seas  that  once  covered  Wales,  the 
Netherlands,  or  the  larger  part  of  Russia?  What 
scientific  enchanter  holds  the  wand  that  can  roll 
back  the  wheel  of  Time  to  those  long-passed  epochs  ? 
or  what  experimenter  so  mighty  as  to  be  able 
to  reproduce  all  those  vanished  conditions  of  the 
universe  which  gave  birth  to  its  primeval  phe- 
nomena ?  The  only  verification  possible  in  any  of 
these  great  departments  is  to  show  that  the  cause 
assigned,  according  to  present  laws  of  causation, 
would  account  for  the  phenomena.  Not  that  they 
did  cause  them,  nor  that  the  laws  of  causation  have 
come  down  unchanged,  nor  even  that  no  other  cause 
could  have  produced  the  given  effects.  The  same  is 
true  of  those  important  scientific  theories,  the  atomic 
constitution  of  chemical  substances  and  the  ether- 
waves  1  which  are  regarded  universally  as  the  vehicle 

even  unverifiable  hypotheses  may  be  great  aids  to  the  progress  of 
knowledge,  may  have  a  right  to  be  believed  with  a  high  degree  of  as- 
surance." (See  article,  "  Darwin  and  Haeckel,"  p.  596,  Popular  Sci- 
ence Monthly,  March,  1875.) 

1  "  The  domain  in  which  this  motion  of  light  is  carried  on,"  says 
Tyndall,  "  lies  entirely  beyond  the  reach  of  our  senses.  The  waves 
of  light  require  a  medium  for  their  formation  and  propagation,  but 


THE  CLAIM  OF  SCIENCE.  H3 

of  light.  No  verification  by  any  kind  of  observa- 
tion is  possible.1  For  the  most  powerful  microscope 
has  never  discerned  a  molecule  or  an  atom.  They 
are  at  least  a  thousand  times  smaller,  according  to 
Thomson's  calculations,  than  any  particle  which  the 
microscope  can  discern.  They  are  as  pure  assump- 
tions as  the  vortices  of  Descartes,  or  the  emitted  cor- 
puscles of  Newton's  theory  of  light.  All  the  verifi- 
cation that  can  be  given  is  to  show,  in  the  phrase 
which  Tyndall  so  frequently  uses,  in  his  paper  on 
the  "Scientific  Imagination,"  that  the  phenomena 
occur  as  if  there  were  such  substrata.  There  is 
nothing  to  prove  that  they  are  actually  there,  or 
that  some  other  better  explanation  may  not  be  dis- 
covered and  banish  them,  as  the  belief  in  emitted 
corpuscles  and  imponderable  fluids  has  already  been 
dismissed. 

So,  again,  the  truths  of  geometry,  the  doctrines 
of  the  indestructibility  of  matter  and  force,  and  the 
uniformity  of  Nature,  all  laws  claiming  universality 
and  absoluteness,  as  it  was  before  shown  that  they 
could  not  be  proved  by  observation,  so  neither  can 
they  be  verified  by  experience,  that  is,  in  their  uni- 
versality and  absoluteness.  Their  only  verification 
is  approximative  and  probable. 

we  cannot  see,  or  feel,  or  taste,  or  smell  this  medium." — (Tyndall's 
"Fragments  of  Science,"  p.  214.) 

1  "  It  is  not  pretended  that  the  existence  of  atoms  has  been  or  can 
be  proved  or  disproved." — (Presidential  Address  of  Prof.  Lovering 
before  the  American  Association  at  Hartford,  1874.) 


114    PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

Thus  is  it  shown  by  examination  that  Science, 
when  she  would  grasp  any  of  the  wider  laws  and 
deeper  secrets  of  Nature,  must  and  does  employ  the 
very  methods  for  which  Religion  is  rejected,  and  is 
open  to  the  same  objections.  If  the  one  is  not  to  be 
rejected  or  doubted  because  of  these,  why  is  the 
other  ?  If  the  physicist  may  rely  upon  man's  natu- 
ral faith  in  an  external  reality,  and  in  the  practical 
veracity  of  his  physical  senses,  why  may  not  the 
spiritualist  rely  upon  the  same  natural  faith  of  man- 
kind, when  it  declares  the  inward  reality  of  the  soul 
and  the  veracity  of  moral  and  spiritual  discernment  ? 
If  the  scientific  world  accept  the  belief  in  the  inde- 
structibility of  force  as  an  ultimate  belief,  not  to  be 
questioned,  why  may  not  the  religious  world  legiti- 
mately receive  the  natural  belief  of  man  in  the  im- 
mortality of  the  soul  as  a  similar  ultimate  belief,  not 
to  be  distrusted  ?  If  the  student  of  Nature  custom- 
arily receives  the  word  of  a  Newton,  a  Laplace,  or 
a  Tyndall,  as  presumably  to  be  trusted,  even  when 
declaring  that  which  he  cannot  fully  understand, 
why  may  not  the  Christian  disciple  accept  the  au- 
thority of  a  superior  spiritual  discerner,  like  Jesus 
Christ,  with  a  similar  confidence  ?  If  the  optician 
may  lawfully  deduce  from  the  phenomena  of  light, 
that  he  studies,  the  hypothesis  of  an  invisible,  infi- 
nite ether,  why  may  not  the  theist,  with  equal  justi- 
fication, infer  from  the  kosmic  phenomena,  that  he 
studies,  the  hypothesis  of  an  invisible,  infinite  Cre- 
ator and  Guardian ;  and  if  the  one  hypothesis  is  not 


THE  CLAIM  OF  SCIENCE.  H5 

to  be  declared  a  "  mere  figment  of  the  scientific  fan- 
cy " 1  because  it  cannot  be  directly  verified  by  sense- 
perception,  why  is  the  other  to  be  regarded  as  a  fig- 
ment of  the  religious  imagination,  merely  because 
it  lacks  the  same  kind  of  sense-demonstration? 

1  Tyndall's  "Fragments  of  Science,"  p.  133. 


$IQ    PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 


CHAPTER  V. 

FAITHS    OF    SCIENCE — AIMS    AND    OBJECTS. 

Thus  it  is  seen  that  science  rests  on  the  same 
grounds  and  employs  the  same  methods  which  its 
champions  have  censured  religion  for  using. 

But  perhaps  it  will  be  said  that,  although  sci- 
ence and  religion  have  no  realty  different  grounds  or 
methods,  yet  the  different  objects  to  which  they  are 
applied  in  each  justify  men  in  refusing  to  the  propo- 
sitions of  theology  the  same  credit  that  they  give  to 
those  of  physical  inquiry.  There  is  certainly  an 
apparent  difference  of  this  kind,  seeming  to  many 
very  real  and  broad,  which  ought  not  to  be  omitted 
from  any  thorough  discussion  of  this  subject.  An 
opponent  of  religion  would  put  it  something  like 
this : 

Religion,  perhaps,  may  employ  the  same  instru- 
mentalities as  science,  but  the  trouble  is,  she  aims  to 
master  with  them  truths  which  they  are  not  compe- 
tent to  grasp.  Science  deals  with  material  masses, 
their  relations   of   heat,   color,   weight,    and   their 


FAITHS   OF  SCIEXCF.  H7 

changes  of  form,  bulk,  place,  quality,  etc. — all  of 
them  things  visible  and  tangible. 

The  endeavor  of  religion,  however,  is  to  estab- 
lish the  existence,  nature,  and  relations  of  immate- 
rial beings,  called  spirits  ;  a  Supreme  Spirit  behind 
and  above  all  Xature,  and  minor  spirits  within  each 
human  body — things  which  no  sense  can  ever  dis- 
cern. 

Science  attends  to  phenomena,  their  coexistences 
and  successions.  It  busies  itself  about  those  things 
only  of  which  there  is  or  can  be  experience.  Re- 
ligion aspires  to  go  behind  the  empirical  to  the  met- 
empirical.  It  talks  of  ideal  conceptions  and  super- 
sensual  objects. 

Science,  again,  limits  itself  to  the  aspects  of 
things  in  their  relations  to  us,  under  the  limitations  of 
earthly  life,  and  as  they  may  be  clearly  comprehend- 
ed by  us.  Religion,  on  the  contrary,  dreams  of  the 
Absolute,  the  Infinite,  the  Eternal,  and  loses  itself 
in  the  mazes  of  the  contradictory  and  the  inconceiv- 
able. Behold  in  this  difference  of  aims  and  objects 
the  ample  justification  of  the  modern  suspicions  of 
religion.  Immaterial  Spirit,  First  Cause,  Eternal, 
Infinite,  Absolute — how  can  such  things  ever  be 
known  ?  What  finger  ever  touched  them,  what 
optic  or  auditory  nerve  ever  gave  report  of  them, 
what  telescope  was  ever  or  can  ever  be  made  so 
space-penetrating,  what  microscope  so  delicate  in 
its  scrutiny  as  to  discern  objects  of  this  nature  ? 
"  They  are,"  says  Biichner,  "  arbitrary  assumptions 


118  PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

without  any  real  basis."  "  Human  thought  and 
human  knowledge,"  he  maintains,1  are  "  incapable  of 
discovering  or  knowing  any  thing  supersensual." 
"  The  materialist,"  says  Virchow,  "  can  never  be 
satisfied  with  it :  he  knows  only  bodies  and  their 
qualities ;  what  is  beyond  he  terms  transcendental, 
and  he  considers  transcendentalism  as  an  aberration 
of  the  human  mind." 

Indeed,  to  the  physical  inquirer,  supersensual 
and  immaterial  things  are  not  even  conceivable. 
"  A  force  not  united  to  matter,  but  floating  freely 
above  it,"  Moleschott  characterizes  as  "  an  ideal  no- 
tion." The  idea  of  immaterial  spirit,  Carl  Vogt 
declares  to  be  "  a  pure  hypothesis,"  and  assigns  it  a 
place  among  "  speculative  fables."  "  The  remark 
of  a  somewhat  crazy,  but  all  the  more  ingenious, 
father  of  the  Church,"  says  the  author  of  the  "  Old 
Faith  and  the  New  "  (p.  152),  "  has  become  the  prin- 
ciple of  modern  science — '  Naught  is  immaterial 
but  what  is  naught.'  " 

Similarly  says  Biichner  :  "  Those  who  talk  of  a 
creative  power  which  is  said  to  have  produced  the 
world  out  of  nothing  are  ignorant  of  the  first  and 
most  simple  principle  founded  upon  experience  and 
the  contemplation  of  Nature.  How  could  a  power 
have  existed  not  manifested  in  material  substance, 
but  governing  it  arbitrarily  according  to  individual 
views  ?  Neither  could  separately  existing  forces  be 
transferred  to  chaotic  matter,  and  produce  the  world 

"  Force  and  Matter,"  p.  xli.,  Introduction. 


FAITHS   OF  SCIENCE.  119 


in  this  manner ;  for  we  have  seen  that  a  separate 
existence  of  either  is  an  impossibility."  1 

Certainly,  say  the  scientific  objectors,  it  is  not 
for  man  to  comprehend  God,  for  the  finite  to 
think  to  find  out  the  Infinite.  All  conceptions  in- 
volving Infinity,  Self-Existence,  Eternity,  Absolute 
Being  (Herbert  Spencer  labors  at  length  to  show,  in 
the  second  and  fourth  chapters  of  his  "  First  Prin- 
ciples," and  in  other  parts  of  his  writings  repeats  the 
statement  again  and  again),  are  but  "  pseudo-ideas," 
"  cymbolic  conceptions  of  the  illegitimate  order." 
Eve*y  religious  system  "  involves  itself  in  the  un- 
thinkable." Every  theologian  who  attempts  to  tell 
the  nature  of  God  or  the  soul  falls  into  contradic- 
tion and  absurdity.  All  the  real  knowledge  that  we 
can  attain  to  is,  that  "  the  power  which  the  universe 
manifests  is  utterly  inscrutable,"  a  conclusion  to 
which  Profs.  Huxley  and  Tyndall  give  repeated  and 
emphatic  amens.  "  As  little  in  our  day,  as  in  the  days 
of  Job,"  says  Prof.  Tyndall,  "  can  man  by  searching 
find  this  power  out." 2  Quoting  the  reply  of  Napo- 
leon, when,  to  the  savants  who  tried  to  account  for 
the  universe  without  any  Divine  agency,  raising  his 
finger  to  the  heavens,  he  said,  "  It  is  all  very  well, 
gentlemen,  but  who  made  all  these  ? '  Prof.  Tyn- 
dall says : 3  "  As  far  as  I  can  see,  there  is  no  quality 
in  the  human  intellect  which  is  fit  to  be  applied 

1  "  Force  and  Matter,"  chapter  i. 

*  Address  before  the  British  Association,  Belfast,  1874. 

*  Fragments  of  Science,"  p.  93. 


120   PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

to  the  solution  of  the  problem.  It  entirely  trail* 
scends  us.  The  phenomena  of  matter  and  force  lie 
within  our  intellectual  range,  and  as  far  as  they 
reach  we  will,  at  all  events,  push  our  inquiries,  but 
behind  and  above  and  around  the  real  mystery  lies 
unsolved,  and  as  far  as  we  are  concerned  is  incapable 
of  solution." 

Xow,  the  defender  of  religion  would  not  deny 
that  there  are  mysteries  insoluble  both  to  religion 
and  science.  He  would  not  deny  that  we  must, 
from  the  nature  of  the  case,  remain  ever  in  igno- 
rance of  much,  probably  of  most,  that  relates  to  the 
origin  and  history  of  the  universe,  the  character,  na- 
ture, laws,  and  relations  of  God  and  the  soul.  But 
he  claims  that,  though  we  cannot  know  all,  though 
we  cannot  know  any  thing,  perhaps,  with  absolute 
certainty,  yet  we  can  know  something  with  strong 
probability — probability  equal  to  that  with  which 
men  are  satisfied  in  the  realm  of  science.  Human 
intellect  cannot,  of  course,  fathom  to  the  bottom 
the  depths  of  spirit.  It  cannot  comprehend  all  the 
mysteries  of  the  Divine.  But  it  can  drop  the  plum- 
met of  thought  deep  enough  to  know  whether  that 
which  it  is  dealing  with  is  matter,  such  as  we  know, 
or  something  else.  It  can  trace  out  a  section  of  the 
Infinite  hyperbola  sufficient  to  show  whether  the 
curve  runs  by  chance  or  by  law,  whether  its  course  is 
toward  the  irrational  or  the  rational,  toward  the  evil 
or  the  good,  toward  matter  or  toward  spirit.  And 
narrow  as  the  circle  of  warrantable  belief  may  be 


FAITHS   OF  SCIENCE.  x2l 

in  comparison  with  the  vast  sea  of  the  unknowable 
encircling  and  conlining  it,  yet  Science  no  more  than 
[Religion  confines  her  credence  to  the  sphere  of  the 
senses,  the  circle  of  the  material,  or  the  range 
wherein  nothing  inconceivable  or  contradictory  is 
met  with.  To  claim  that  in  this  respect  there  is 
any  substantial  difference  between  science  and  reli- 
gion is  a  most  unfounded  pretension.  For  it  can  be 
shown,  here  as  before,  that  Science  is  in  the  same 
box  as  Religion,  and  shoots  her  arrows  at  just  as 
transcendental  targets. 

First,  Science  no  more  than  Religion  restricts  its 
belief  to  what  it  can  see,  hear,  touch,  smell,  feel. 
Xo  more  than  its  rival  does  it  accept  the  horizon  of 
sense  as  commensurate  with  the  possibilities  of 
knowledge  or  existence. 

The  illustrations  of  this  in  the  circle  of  the  sci- 
ences are  countless.  If  human  knowledge  had 
been,  as  Buchner  maintains  it  is,  incapable  of  attain- 
ing to  any  thing  supersensual,  its  attainments  would 
have  been  comparatively  meagre.  Take  the  most 
familiar  instructions  of  science,  and  half  of  them 
are  things  which,  if  appearance  before  the  bar  of 
the  senses  is  to  be  taken  as  the  test  of  credence, 
would  have  to  be  disbelieved.  It  is  a  fundamental 
law  in  the  science  of  projectiles,  for  example,  that 
a  rifle-ball  or  cannon-shot,  discharged  from  the  gun, 
describes  in  its  flight  a  parabola.  Yet,  what  physi- 
cal observer  has  followed  out  with  his  physical  eye 
the  tracing  of  that  curve  through  the  air  from  the 
6 


122  PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

cannon's  mouth  to  the  point  where  it  fell,  so  as  exactly 
to  observe  or  verify  it  ?  Again,  probably  no  man  of 
science  doubts  that  our  earth  has  poles — points,  that 
is,  at  the  extreme  north  and  at  the  extreme  south  of 
our  globe,  so  differently  situated  from  all  other  points 
on  the  globe  that  an  observer  there  would  find  his 
sight  of  sun  and  stars  unaffected  by  that  daily  revo- 
lution that,  in  every  man's  past  experience,  wher- 
ever he  may  have  been,  hourly  shifts  the  apparent 
position  of  the  heavenly  bodies.  Here  is  a  most 
singular  phenomenon,  opposed  to  men's  daily  expe- 
rience, yet  held  as  an  unquestioned  part  of  science. 
Nevertheless,  no  human  eve  has  ever  beheld  these 
spots,  or  is  ever  likely  to  behold  them.  Xo  astron- 
omer, again,  has  ever  seen  the  other  side  of  the 
moon.  Yet  shall  we  hesitate  to  believe  that  it  has 
one  ?  No  chemist  has  ever  seen,  grasped,  tasted,  or 
si iielt,  pure  oxygen.  Even  when  Andrews  com- 
pressed it  to  the  density  of  water,  it  still  remained 
colorless  to  the  eye,  tasteless  to  the  tongue,  odorless 
to  the  nose,  ungraspable  by  the  hand,  manifesting 
itself  only  by  its  gravitative,  repulsive,  chemic,  or 
other  forces.  Shall  we  consign,  therefore,  to  the 
limits  of  non-existence  what  constitutes  eight-ninths 
of  water,  one-half  of  the  earth's  crust,  and  three- 
fourths  of  organized  beings  ? 

People  in  general  may  be  forgiven  for  thinking 
that  the  senses  are  capable  of  detecting  all  that  ex- 
ists. But  the  thorough  scientist  is  just  the  man 
who  best  knows,  or  ought  to  know,  how  comparative- 


FAITHS   OF  SCIENCE.  123 

ly  small  a  part  of  the  universe  of  things  the  senses 
can  catch  a  glimpse  of.  He  has  scientifically  meas- 
ured them  and  taken  the  gamut  of  their  power. 
With  the  sirene  he  counts  the  vibrations  of  audible 
sound,  and  finds  that  the  ordinary  ear  can  hear  no 
note  less  than  fifteen  vibrations  a  second  nor  more 
than  forty-two  thousand.  Below  or  above  this  limit 
there  is  silence  to  the  human  ear,  yet  he  does  not 
believe  that  the  vibration  of  the  air  ceases,  or  would 
be  inaudible  to  an  auditory  organ  of  wider  compass. 
"With  the  prism  he  untwists  the  rays  of  the  solar 
beam,  and  by  delicate  processes  measures  their  ve« 
locity.  Only  those  whose  rates  exceed  three  hun- 
dred and  ninety-nine  billion  vibrations  a  second,  or 
fall  below  eight  hundred  and  thirty-one  billion,1  are 
visible  to  the  eye.  Yet  the  man  of  science  does  not 
regard  the  vibrations  as  ceasing  beyond  these  limits. 
When  at  the  extreme  red  end  of  the  spectrum  they 
cease  to  be  visible,  the  thermometer  and  the  ther- 
mopyle  still  detect  them  by  their  heat,  and  beyond 
the  extreme  violet  the  phenomena  of  fluorescence 
or  photo-chemical  action  disclose  them  as  chemical 
force.  "  The  light-giving  rays  from  any  object  are 
only  a  fraction,"  says  Tyndall,  "  of  the  total  radia- 
tion." In  the  electric  light,  for  instance,  they  con- 
stitute no  more  than  one-ninth. a 

There  are  thus  sounds  to  which  we  are  deaf, 
light  to  which  we  are  blind,  heat,  magnetism,  elec- 

1  Herschel's  "Familiar  Lectures,"  p.  312. 
5  "  Fragments  of  Science,"  p.  206. 


124  PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

tricity  to  which  we  are  insensible.  A  thousand  forms 
of  force  strike  us  hourly,  and  our  dull  nerves  know 
it  not.  A  thousand  objects  and  motions  envelop  us, 
and  the  narrow  boundaries  of  our  organs  fail  to 
take  them  in.  It  was  in  the  belief  that  there  was  a 
vast  deal  more  to  see  than  the  naked  eye  could  dis- 
cern; that  physical  investigators  with  infinite  inge- 
nuity and  patience  have  contrived  instruments  for 
magnifying  the  invisible,  until  it  was  brought  within 
the  scope  of  sense. 

And  their  faith  has  been  well  rewarded.  In 
what  seemed  the  blank  darkness  of  the  heavens 
there  have  been  revealed  to  them  suns  and  nebulae, 
planets  and  attendant  moons.  In  what  seemed  a 
simple,  unoccupied  drop  of  water,  there  has  been 
disclosed  a  host  of  both  organic  and  inorganic  bod- 
ies, the  plants  as  actively  moving  as  the  animals, 
and  the  mineral  particles  dancing  about  with  as  in- 
cessant motion  as  if  alive.  In  the  last  half -century 
the  men  of  science  have  seen  telescope  and  micro- 
scope continually  increased  in  power,  and  other 
instruments,  equally  wonderful  in  widening  the 
realm  of  observation,  invented  and  improved,  and 
never  have  they  found  increased  power  fail  to  dis- 
cover beyond  the  former  limit  of  perception  still 
more  phenomena. 

Suppose  these  instruments  still  further  increased, 
no  matter  how  much,  and  who  doubts  that  still 
new  sights,  now  undiscernible,  would  open  before 
us  ?     Or  suppose  that  human  ingenuity  should  de- 


FAITHS  OF  SCIENCE.  125 

vise  telescopes  and  microscopes  for  the  ear,  for  the 
sense  of  taste,  smell,  or  touch,  and  who  doubts  that 
facts  before  imperceptible  by  any  sense  would  be- 
come revealed  to  us  ?  The  very  possibility,  how- 
ever, of  such  greater  victories  of  sense  implies  real 
and  knowable  existence  beyond  the  grasp  of  pres- 
ent sense. 

In  their  own  held  of  inquiry,  physicists  freely 
assert  this.  Tyndall  justly  speaks  of  "  that  region 
inaccessible  to  sense,  which  embraces  so  much  of 
the  intellectual  life  of  the  physical  investigator." 

De  La  "Rive  ascribed  the  haze  of  the  Alps  to 
floating  organic  germs ;  and  the  advocates  of  the 
germ  theory  of  disease  and  the  opponents  of  spon- 
taneous generation  maintain,  as  their  basic  fact,  the 
profuse  existence  in  common  air  of  such  living 
germs,  pelting  us  every  moment,  yet  nnfelt  and  un- 
seen. Whether  or  not  such  infinitesimal  organic 
germs  exist,  yet  we  have  in  the  atmosphere,"  says 
Tyndall,1  "  particles  that  defy  both  the  microscope 
and  the  balance,  which  do  not  darken  the  air,  and 
which  exist,  nevertheless,  in  multitudes  sufficient  to 
reduce  to  insignificance  the  Israelitish  hyperbole  re- 
garding the  sands  upon  the  sea-shore." 

To  identify  what  the  microscope  fails  to  see 
with  the  non-existent,  Prof.  Tyndall  deems  so  grave 
an  error  as  to  take  pains  to  caution  biologists  against 
it.  "  "When,  for  example,  the  contents  of  a  cell  are 
described  as  perfectly  homogeneous,  as  absolutely 

1  "Fragments  of  Science,"  p.  151. 


126   PHYSICAL  AXD  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

structureless,  because  the  microscope  fails  to  distin- 
guish any  structure,  then,  I  think  the  microscope 
begins  to  play  a  mischievous  part,"  and  he  proceeds 
to  point  out,  in  regard  to  the  profound  and  complex 
changes  of  structure  which  occur  when  water  is 
frozen  or  polarized,  that  absolutely  none  of  them 
can  be  discerned  by  the  microscope.  "  The  causes 
in  which  similar  conditions  hold,"  he  adds,  "  are 
simply  numberless.  Have  the  diamond,  the  ame- 
thyst, and  the  countless  other  crystals  formed  in  the 
laboratories  of  Nature  and  of  man  no  structure  ? 
Assuredly  they  have  ;  but  what  can  the  microscope 
make  of  it  ?     Nothing."  l 

From  the  mineralogist  and  biologist,  turn  to  the 
chemist.  Ask  him  if  he  makes  the  limit  of  the 
senses,  even  when  widened  to  the  utmost  range  to 
which  the  most  delicate  instruments  can  push  it,  the 
limit,  in  his  belief,  of  real  existence  or  knowledge — ■ 
and  what  must  be  his  honest  answer  ?  To  show  you 
how  the  whole  of  chemistry,  as  a  systematized  science, 
is  based  upon  the  existence  of  the  molecule  and  the 
atom.  When  the  chemist  deals  with  his  various 
substances,  he  meets  such  problems  as  these :  How 
can  a  body  dilate  and  contract,  be  melted,  vapor- 
ized, or  solidified  ?  What  puts  a  limit  to  the  pro- 
cess of  attenuation  ?  Whv  do  chemical  substances 
nnite  only  in  definite  proportions  ?  And  the  result 
to  which  he  is  brought  is  that  a  body,  such  as  a  grain 
of  salt,  is  not  a  simple  compact  body,  but  an  aggre- 

1  "  Fragments  of  Science,"  pp.  152,  153. 


FAITHS   OF  SCIENCE.  127 

gation  of  minute  corpuscles,  which  he  calls  mole- 
cules, and  these  molecules,  in  their  turn,  a  group  of 
still  smaller  and  simpler  particles,  called  atoms. 
The  aggregate  formed  by  these  particles  seems  to 
our  senses  solid,  continuous,  and  motionless,  yet  in 
reality  neither  its  molecules  nor  its  atoms  are  in 
contact,  nor  remain  a  single  minute  at  rest.  By  a 
certain  repulsive  power,  each  atom  holds  itself  off 
from  too  close  proximity  to  its  neighbor.  By  a 
certain  attractive  power  it  draws  toward  it  such 
atoms  as  it  has  an  affinity  for,  disengages  them  from 
other  groups,  and  brings  them  into  league  with  it- 
self. Through  the  play  of  their  mutual  forces,  the 
atoms  are  marshaled  in  jnst  the  right  number  into 
a  certain  order  or  position.  With  ceaseless  oscilla- 
tions all  these  atoms  are  swinging  to  and  fro,  cir- 
cling around  some  point  of  equilibrium.  Send  a 
current  of  electricity  through  the  midst  of  them,  and 
their  path  becomes  more  or  less  elliptic  ;  put  them 
under  the  influence  of  a  magnet,  and  they  assume  a 
peculiar  helicoidal  motion  in  varying  planes.  Ap- 
ply heat,  and  the  vibrations  become  ampler  and 
more  rapid.  Increase  the  heat,  and  they  leave 
their  circular  paths  and  fly  off  tangentially,  moving 
rectilineally  through  space.  Atoms  clash  against 
atoms,  rebound,  and  with  ceaseless  impact  cannon- 
ade whatever  object  would  hem  them  in.  Joule 
calculated  the  velocity  of  this  atomic  bombardment, 
and  found  that  the  boasted  guns  of  modern  warfare 
are  unable  to  compete  with  it.     Sir  "William  Thorn- 


12S   PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

son  has  estimated  their  size,  and  set  down  the  maxi- 
mum distance  of  the  chemical  atoms  in  molecules  as 
the  ten-millionth  part  of  one-twenty-fifth  of  an  inch. 
Other  mathematicians  have  computed  their  weights 
and  energies.  The  things  which  naturally  give  to 
us  the  highest  conception  of  force  and  majesty  are 
the  grand  bodies  that  march  so  ceaselessly  through 
the  heavens,  the  tidal  movement  of  oceans  from  end 
to  end  of  the  globe,  or  the  fall  of  huge  masses  un- 
der the  power  of  gravity  ;  but  all  this  energy  is  as 
nothing  in  comparison  with  that  which  is  found  to 
lie  in  the  atoms.  It  is  the  nature  and  force  of  the 
atoms  that  give  its  shape  to  the  crystal,  its  quality 
to  the  acid  or  alkali,  their  color,  odor,  softness,  or 
hardness  to  substances.  It  is  the  atoms  that  build 
up  every  individual  body  from  a  drop  of  water  to  a 
whirling  sun. 

Now,  of  all  this,  the  accepted  basis  of  theoreti- 
cal chemistry  and  thermodynamics,  how  much  can 
be  produced  before  the  bar  of  the  senses?  Of 
these  units  of  matter,  how  many  have  been  iso- 
lated, separately  weighed,  measured,  or  touched  ? 
Not  a  single  one.  Of  these  ceaseless  motions,  how 
much  has  been  felt  or  seen  %  <  )f  these  constant 
clashes,  how  much  has  been  heard  ?  None  at  all. 
If  the  microscope  was  not  delicate  enough  to  dis- 
cern the  particles  which  give  the  azure  to  the  sky, 
or  the  infusorial  germ  which  disseminates  an  epidem- 
ic, how  far  beyond  its  power  of  detection  must  be 
these  atoms,  thousands  of  which  are  needed  to  make 


FAITHS   OF  SCIENCE.  129 

the  smallest  of  those  bodies  ?  Prof.  Tyndall,  allud- 
ing to  Sir  William  Thomson's  studies  upon  the  mo- 
lecular process  involved  in  the  magnetic  polariza- 
tion of  light,  has  said '  that,  "  while  dealing  with 
this  question,  he  lived  in  a  world  of  matter  and 
motion,  to  which  the  microscope  has  no  passport, 
and  in  which  it  can  afford  no  aid."  That  must 
be  the  case  with  every  one  who  would  learn  any 
thing  of  either  molecule  or  atom.  Nevertheless, 
the  scientific  world  believes  in  them,  talks  of  them, 
and  uses  them,  not  only  in  its  theoretical  reasonings, 
but  in  its  practical  applications  and  current  instruc- 
tions. 

If  it  receives  its  warrant  from  no  sense,  whence, 
then,  does  it  derive  its  belief  in  these  imperceptible 
workers,  everywhere  present  and  active — these  in- 
visible kings  governing  Nature  by  eternal  laws? 
Evidently  from  just  such  mental  apprehensions 
and  inferences  as  assure  religion  of  God  and  the 
soul. 

We  have  tracked  scientific  faith  beyond  the 
farthest  ken  of  the  microscope  to  the  infinitesimal 
mote,  beyond  the  mote  to  the  molecule,  beyond  the 
molecule  to  the  still  minuter,  more  undiscernible 
atom.  Does  scientific  faith  here  at  length  make  a 
halt  and  refuse  to  go  farther  ?  Ask  optics,  and 
hear  for  its  answer  its  report  of  the  existence,  as  it 
believes,  of  a  substance  still  more  tenuous  and  im- 
palpable, still  farther  beyond  any  possible  discern- 

1  "Fragments  of  Science,"  p.  153. 


130  PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

ment  by  any  sense.  In  the  time  of  Newton,  light 
was  looked  npon  as  a  snbtile  kind  of  matter  emitted 
from  luminons  bodies,  and  shot  ont  npon  the  senses. 
The  interplanetary  and  interstellar  spaces  were  voids, 
merely  traversed  by  these  minnte  missiles.  But 
serious  objections,  arising  from  the  peculiar  phe- 
nomena of  refraction,  interference,  and  polarization 
of  light  successively  presented  themselves.  To  ex- 
plain these,  natural  philosophers  were  led  to  the 
theory  that  the  motions  of  light  were  those  of  vibra- 
tion, not  of  translation.  But  where  there  are  vi- 
brations, there  must  be  something  to  vibrate.  Phys- 
ics, therefore,  filled  again  the  whole  universe  with  a 
something  which  it  called  ether,  which  might  serve 
as  the  vehicle  of  the  luminous  waves.  This  ether, 
it  is  believed,  surrounds  every  particle,  penetrates 
every  body,  fills  all  space.  The  hardest  iron  is  not 
impervious  to  it.  The  most  complete  atmospheric 
vacuum,  even  the  desert  voids  that  reign  between 
star  and  star,  are  full  of  it,  and  the  absence  of  com- 
mon matter  onlv  serves  to  transmit  the  better  the 
ethereal  waves.  A  ray  of  light  passing  from  the 
sun  to  the  earth  is  a  column  of  ether  in  vibration. 
Along  it  run  countless  waves,  from  thirty  thousand 
to  seventy  thousand  in  a  single  inch,  and  with  such 
amazing  velocity  that  trillions  of  them  enter  the  eye 
in  the  briefest  glance  at  any  object.  The  atoms 
which  it  bathes  obey  it  docilely,  like  balls  floating 
upon  the  water,  rising  and  falling  with  its  waves. 
Round  their  centre  of  rest  they  swing  in  little  orbits, 


FAITHS   OF  SCIEXCF.  131 

now  longer,  now  smaller,  now  circular,  now  elliptical. 
At  every  point  this  ether  exerts  forces  of  enormous 
intensity.  Sir  John  Herschel  has  calculated  that  its 
power  of  resistance  to  pressure  (and  conversely  its 
own  possible  pressure  on  objects  that  resist  it)  is  up- 
ward of  seventeen  billions  of  pounds,1  and  that  the 
intensity  of  the  coercive  force  called  into  action  in 
the  excitement  of  a  luminous  vibration  must  be 
thirty  thousand  million  times  that  of  gravity.2  In 
comparison  wTith  the  bulk  of  this  ether,  ordinary 
matter  forms  but  a  very  trifling  part  of  the  universe. 
For,  even  if  we  disregard  the  ether  diffused  through 
ordinary  matter  and  interplanetary  spaces,  and  sup- 
pose the  whole  of  our  solar  system  filled  with  ordi- 
nary matter,  the  proportion  between  it  and  the  ethe- 
real sphere  whose  radius  is  the  distance  of  the  near- 
est fixed  star  would  be  only  as  one  to  eleven  trill- 
ions. 

And  now,  if  we  inquire,  again,  what  warrant  from 
experience  has  Science  for  believing  in  the  lumi- 
nous ether,  our  answer  is  as  before — none.  Though 
the  medium  of  vision,  it  and  its  vibrations  are  far- 
ther beyond  all  visibleness  than  the  tiniest  molecule. 
Though  more  tenacious  than  steel,  we  move  through 
it  constantly  without  feeling  it.  Though  so  enor- 
mous is  its  pressure,  no  balance  can  weigh  it. 
Though  touching  us  on  every  side  every  second,  no 
touch  of  ours  can  detect  it.     As  Prof.  Tyndall 3  has 

«  "Familiar  Lectures,"  p.  282.  2Ibid.,  p.  315. 

3  "  Fragments  of  Science,"  p.  215. 


132   PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

himself  said,  "  the  domain  in  which  this  motion  of 
light  is  carried  on  lies  entirely  beyond  the  reach  of 
our  senses.  The  waves  of  light  require  a  medium 
for  their  formation  and  propagation,  but  we  cannot 
see  or  feel  or  taste  or  smell  this  medium.  How, 
then,  has  its  existence  been  established  ?  By  show- 
ing that  by  the  assumption  of  this  wonderful,  in- 
tangible ether  all  the  phenomena  of  optics  are 
accounted  for  with  a  fullness,  and  clearness,  and 
conclusiveness,  which  leave  no  desire  of  the  intel- 
lect unfulfilled." 

But  if  science  may  accept  the  perception  and 
satisfaction  of  the  reason  as  good  proof  of  what  no 
observation  can  discover,  why  should  religion  be 
debarred  a  similar  privilege  ? 

"  All  that  we  see  of  the  world,"  says  Pascal,  "  is 
but  an  imperceptible  scratch  in  the  vast  range  of 
Nature."  "And  the  claim  of  mere  experimental- 
ism"  Paoillon  well  adds,  "  is  that  it  mav  sentence 
men  to  the  fixed  and  stubborn  contemplation  of  this 
mere  scratch." 

So  far  from  phenomena  comprising  all  that  we 
can  know,  the  truth  is  that  phenomena  give  only  the 
lowest  grade  of  knowledge,  and  the  highest  is  that 
which  most  transcends  phenomena.  Prof.  Huxley,1 
speaking  of  Auguste  Comte's  "  Positive  Philosophy," 
says  that  the  word  "  positive,"  "  as  implying  a  sys- 
tem of  thought  which  assumes  nothing  beyond  the 
content  of  observed  facts,  implies  that  which  never 

1  "Lay  Sermons,"  p.  161. 


FAITHS   OF  SCIEXCE.  133 

did  exist  and  never  will."  The  outward  and  visible 
phenomena  are  but  the  raw  material  of  knowledge, 
or,  to  use  the  expression  of  Tyndall,1  "  the  counters 
of  the  intellect,"  "  and  our  science,"  as  he  goes  on 
to  say,  "  would  not  be  worthy  of  its  name  and  fame, 
if  it  halted  at  facts,  however  practically  useful,  and 
neglected  the  laws  which  accompany  and  rule  phe- 
nomena." 

The  first  step  in  science,  then,  is,  to  group  facts 
about  some  thought.  Then  these  first  classifications 
must  be  illuminated  by  some  more  general  concep- 
tion ;  and  if  a  science  is  to  be  developed  to  the  high- 
est grade  these  general  conceptions  must  be  synthe- 
sized in  some  law  of  its  laws — some  one  grand  idea 
summing  it  all  up.  What  the  physical  inquirer  thus 
pursues  amid  his  retorts,  his  herbariums,  mineralogi- 
cal  cabinets,  or  zoological  museums,  is  ideas ;  and  in 
the  present  state  of  science  there  is  nothing  more 
remarkable  than  the  ideal  nature  of  its  results.  AVe 
have  seen  this  already  in  regard  to  chemistry  and 
optics.  If  we  look  at  geometry  we  find  it  to  be 
throughout  a  work  of  mental  construction,  grounded 
upon  and  guided  by  pure  mental  insight  of  space, 
and  reasonings  therefrom.  Had  geometrical  truths 
required  for  acceptance  phenomenal  demonstration, 
we  should  not  have  known  a  single  proposition.  An 
exact  right  angle  has  no  existence  as  a  phenomenon, 
a  perfect  sphere  is  impossible  as  a  fact. 

Arithmetic  and  algebra,  similarly,  are  ideal  con- 

1  "  Fragments  of  Science,"  p  227. 


134    PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

structions  built  up  from  the  metaphysical  conception 
of  number.  It  may  be  said  that  the  idea  of  number 
is  simply  borrowed  from  the  phenomenal  world. 
But,  as  we  have  it,  and  use  it,  it  is  stripped  thorough- 
ly of  concrete  objectivity,  and  reduced  to  simple  re- 
lations between  symbolic  objects.  If  number  be 
altogether  a  teaching  of  experience,  where  did  ex- 
perience observe  its  two  poles — zero  and  infinity  ? 

In  astronomy,  resting  as  it  does  on  geometry  and 
arithmetic,  there  is  necessarily  the  same  idealness. 
Kepler's  laws  of  planetary  action,  and  Newton's  laws 
of  motion,  are  not  laws  of  fact,  but  types  of  the 
scientific  imagination.  The  postulates  of  the  as- 
tronomer, uniform  velocity  and  elliptical  motion, 
have  no  place  in  exact  reality.  The  same  is  true  of 
that  which  the  science  of  mechanics  rests  on — uni- 
form force  and  rectilineal  motion.  No  eye  has  seen 
or  shall  see  it.  So,  again,  in  electricity,  magnetism, 
thermodynamics,  the  subtile  analyses  of  modern  in- 
vestigators have  banished  altogether  the  former 
theories  of  material  fluids,  and  substituted  the  con- 
ception of  invisible  forces.  The  scientific  energies 
now  believed  in  are  not  physical  things,  but  mental 
data.  Gravity,  for  example,  is  not  a  material  entity, 
but  the  correlate  of  thought  to  motion,  the  occult 
cause  inferred  by  the  mind  where  change  of  place  is 
observed.  The  fact,  in  fine,  is,  as  George  H.  Lewes ' 
has  said,  "  Were  the  whole  circle  of  the  sciences  to 
pass  before  us,  each  would  in  turn  display  the  essen- 

1  "  Problems  of  Life  and  Mind,"  p.  271. 


FAITHS   OF  SCIEXCE.  135 

tially  ideal  nature  of  its  construction,"  and  again,  in 
his  "  Philosophy  of  Aristotle"  (p.  66),  "  The  funda- 
mental ideas  of  modem  science  are  as  transcendental 
as  any  of  the  axioms  in  ancient  philosophy." 

If  transcendentalism  be  justifiable  with  science, 
why  should  it  be  an  aberration  of  mind  with  religion  ? 
If  the  inability  of  sense  to  discern  many  of  the  things 
that  science  believes  in  is  no  bar  to  a  valid  knowl- 
edge of  material  things,  why  should  it  disprove  the 
existence  of  spiritual  things  ? 

Because,  perhaps  the  man  of  science  may  here 
respond,  because  all  things  that  science  believes 
really  to  exist,  though  in  some  cases  not  such  as  can 
be  actually  observed,  owing  to  the  weakness  of  our 
senses,  are  always  conceivably  so.  Imagine  our 
powers  of  observation  sufficiently  increased,  and  they 
would  become  visible  and  tangible.  They  belong  to 
the  realm  of  matter  and  its  qualities ;  the  quantity 
of  matter  may  be  very  attenuated,  but  it  is  matter 
still.  Whatever  ideal  constructions  science  uses  are 
derived  from  material  phenomena,  and  are  reducible 
again  to  it,  or  translatable  in  terms  of  body  and  its 
functions,  or,  if  not,  are  recognized  as  mere  fictions, 
convenient  for  calculation  or  statement,  but  not  re- 
garded as  things  actually  existing.  To  use  the  recent 
distinction  which  Lewes  has  proposed,  science  is 
often  metaphysical,  but  never  metempirical  ;  it  ac- 
cepts the  extra-sensible  but  not  the  super-sensible. 
All  that  is  immaterial  is,  in  the  view  of  science, 
non-existent. 


136    PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

"Were  these  statements  true,  there  certainly  would 
exist  here  an  essential  difference  between  the  objects 
of  religion  and  those  of  science.  It  may  be  venture- 
some to  deny  them,  but  it  does  not  seem  to  me  that 
they  are  valid.  Science,  it  seems  to  me,  in  many 
points,  implies  at  least,  if  it  does  not  directly  recog- 
nize, the  existence  of  the  immaterial. 

All  the  objects  that  science  studies  are  seen  in 
space.  All  the  events  that  it  traces  are  known  as 
occurring  in  time.  These  two,  space  and  time,  are 
fundamental  conditions  of  all  science.  Yet  neither 
space  nor  time  is  itself  a  material  thing.  The  exten- 
sion of  a  body,  the  duration  of  a  motion  or  change, 
are,  to  be  sure,  qualities  of  material  things.  But 
the  space  which  receives  and  incloses  all  extended 
matter,  the  time  which  is  the  ground  of  all  suc- 
cession or  duration,  these  are  not  even  conceivably 
to  be  seen  or  heard  or  felt,  not  even  conceivably  to 
be  regarded  as  substances,  however  infinitely  attenu- 
ated. Sense  may  tell  us  of  the  finite  extension  of 
an  individual  object,  but  sense  has  never  and  can 
never  tell  us  of  the  Infinite  Space  which  the  appre- 
hension of  each  particular  extension  presupposes. 
From  experience  we  may  learn  of  the  order  and 
duration  of  particular  occurrences.  But  from  ex- 
perience we  cannot  learn  of  the  Eternal  Time  which 
is  the  implied  condition  of  all  temporal  events. 
Shall  space  and  time,  then,  be  set  down  as  fictions  of 
the  intellect?  That  equally  is  impossible  without 
destroying  the  whole  edifice  of   knowledge.      For 


FAITHS   OF  SCIEXCE.  137 

their  existence  is  involved  in  the  existence  of  every 
object  and  property  of  the  actual  world. 

The  existence  of  what  is  immaterial  seems  to  be 
involved,  again,  in  any  satisfactory  explanation  of 
the  dynamics  of  Nature.  How,  for  example,  if  we 
suppose  no  other  kind  of  force  in  existence  than  that 
which  is  a  property  of  material  objects  and  seated  in 
them,  can  the  attraction  of  gravitation,  cohesion  and 
adhesion,  the  repulsion  of  heat,  the  occurrence  of 
both  attractive  and  repulsive  forces  in  magnetism 
and  electricity,  be  explained  ?  Immense  voids  sepa- 
rate planet  from  planet,  star  from  star.  Yet  the 
force  of  gravitation  almost  instantly  passes  from  one 
to  the  other.  Great  intervals  may  separate  two 
electric  currents,  or  a  magnet  from  a  magnetic  body ; 
and  yet  the  electric  or  magnetic  force  will  act  from 
one  to  the  other.  For  example,  it  is  now  considered 
proved  that  the  sun  acts  upon  the  earth  as  a  magnet. 
Even  between  molecule  and  molecule  similar  inter- 
spaces exist.  In  the  hardest  of  substances,  the  scien- 
tific men  tell  us,  the  molecules  are  not  in  contact  with 
their  neighboring  molecules.  "Were  they  so,  bodies 
would  be  absolutely  incompressible.  The  fact  is, 
however,  that  there  is  no  body  that  is  not  more  or 
less  compressible.  Those  that  are  but  slightly  com- 
pressible by  the  most  powerful  mechanical  means, 
contract  or  interpenetrate  under  the  force  of  chemi- 
cal affinity.  Sulphuric  acid  and  water,  though  not 
sensibly  yielding  to  pressure,  yet,  when  mixed,  give 
a  resulting  volume  considerably  less  than  the  aggre- 


138  PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

gate  volume  of  the  two  liquids  used.  According  to 
Faraday  we  may  cast  into  potassium  its  equivalent 
of  oxygen,  and  again  both  oxygen  and  hydrogen  in 
a  twofold  number  of  atoms,  and  yet,  with  all  these 
additions,  the  matter  shall  become  less  and  less  till 
it  is  not  two-thirds  of  its  original  volume.  A  space 
which  would  be  filled  by  four  hundred  and  thirty 
atoms  of  potassium  may  thus  be  made  to  contain 
seven  hundred  of  potassium  and  twenty-one  hundred 
of  oxygen  and  hydrogen. 

Such  experiments  make  it  evident  that  consider- 
able interspaces  separate  even  the  nearest  atoms. 
Now,  if  there  be  no  force  except  that  which  is  a 
quality  of  some  material  body,  and  seated  in  it,  how 
can  these  various  forms  pass  beyond  the  periphery 
of  their  respective  material  seats,  traverse  these  void 
spaces,  and  act  upon  other  bodies  at  a  distance  ? 

Is  it  conceivable  that  a  material  body  can,  through 
its  strictly  material  force,  act  where  it  does  not  exist, 
or  where  no  medium  intervenes  through  which  to 
transmit  its  force  ?  Let  the  great  discoverer  of 
gravitation  answer.  "  It  is  inconceivable,"  says 
Newton,  in  a  celebrated  passage  of  his  letter  to 
Bentley,  "  that  inanimate  brute  matter  should,  with- 
out the  mediation  of  something  else,  which  is  not 
material,  operate  upon  and  affect  other  matter  with- 
out mutual  contact.  .  .  .  That  gravity  should  be  in- 
nate, inherent,  and  essential  to  matter,  so  that  one 
body  may  act  upon  another  through  a  vacuum,  with- 
out the  mediation  of  any  thing  else,  by  and  through 


FAITHS   OF  SCIEXCR  139 

which  their  action  and  force  may  be  conveyed  from 
one  to  the  other,  is  to  me  so  great  an  absurdity  that 
I  believe  no  man,  who  in  philosophical  matters  has 
a  competent  faculty  of  thinking,  can  ever  fall  into 
it." 

Or,  if  more  modern  authority  is  desired,  the  re- 
cent and  weighty  words  of  Prof.  Challis 1  and  Prof. 
Maxwell  may  be  quoted  : 

tJ  There  is  no  other  kind  of  force  than  pressure 
by  contact  of  one  body  with  another.  .  .  .  I'he  rule 
of  philosophy  which  makes  personal  sensation  and 
experience  the  basis  of  scientific  knowledge  .  .  . 
forbids  recognizing  any  other  mode  of  moving  a 
body  than  this.  When,  therefore,  a  body  is  caused 
to  move  without  apparent  contact  and  pressure  of 
another  body,  it  must  still  be  concluded  that  the 
pressing  body,  although  invisible,  exists,  unless  we 
are  prepared  to  admit  that  there  are  physical  opera- 
tions which  are  and  ever  will  be  incomprehensible 
to  us.  .  .  .  All  physical  force  being  pressure,  there 
must  be  a  medium  by  which  the  pressure  is  exerted." 

"  If  something,"  says  Prof.  Clerk  Maxwell,2  "  is 
transmitted  from  one  particle  to  another  at  a  dis- 
tance, what  is  its  condition  after  it  has  left  the  one 
particle  and  before  it  has  reached  the  other  ?  If  this 
something  is  the  potential  energy  of  the  two  parti- 
cles, how  are  we  to  conceive  this  energy  as  existing 
in  a  point  of  space  coinciding  neither  with  the  one 

1  Philosophical  Magazine,  vol.  xxxii.,  §  4,  p.  46*7. 

2  "  Electricity  and  Magnetism,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  437. 


l-±0  PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

particle  nor  the  other?  In  fact,  whenever  energy 
is  transmitted  from  one  body  to  another  in  time, 
there  must  be  a  medium  or  substance  in  which  the 
energy  exists." 

Suppose,  then,  in  order  that  we  may  interpret 
gravitation  and  the  other  attractive  forces  as  ma- 
terial forces,  we  boldly  diffuse  through  all  the  vast 
regions  where  they  are  displayed,  between  star  and 
star,  between  molecule  and  molecule,  an  invisible 
intervening  medium,  bathing  them  on  all  sides,  and 
pressing  them  one  toward  another.  Suppose  we  say, 
as  Prof.  Challis  does,  that  the  luminous  ether  pre- 
sents to  us,  as  actually  existing,  such  an  omnipresent, 
ever-pressing  medium,  and  that  the  vibratory  motion 
of  atoms  or  larger  material  bodies  in  the  midst  of 
this  sea  of  ether  is  sufficient,  in  accordance  with 
Prof.  Guthrie's  famous  experiments,  and  Sir  William 
Thomson's  calculations,  to  direct  the  ethereal  press- 
ure upon  gravitative,  cohesive,  or  magnetic  centres. 
Still  the  difficulty  is  not  overcome.  To  interpret 
gravitation  thus,  as  transmission  of  pressure  through 
the  luminiferous  ether,  seems  inconsistent  with  the 
instant,  or  almost  instant,  action  of  gravitation 
through  the  greatest  distances.  The  velocity  of 
light  through  the  ether,  though  exceedingly  swift, 
yet  occupies  quite  an  appreciable  time — several  min- 
utes in  passing  from  planet  to  planet,  and  years  in 
going  from  star  to  star.  But  the  velocity  of  gravi- 
tation, if  any  finite  measure  can  be  given  to  it,  is  at 
least,  according  to  Laplace's  calculations,  fifty  mill 


FAITHS   OF  SCIENCE.  141 

ion  times  that  of  light.  Moreover,  if  attraction  be 
a  result  of  ethereal  pressure,  what  is  there  without 
the  ether  to  press  it  thus  ever  inward  ?  or,  if  there 
is  nothing,  what  prevents  it,  as  Sir  John  Herschel 
asked,  from  expanding  into  infinite  space,  and  losing 
itself  there?  Is  it  conceivable  that  this  ether,  any 
more  than  other  matter,  should  be  free  from  all 
discontinuity,  all  division  into  constituent  parts  and 
intervals  between  them  ?  If  not,  then  the  existence 
of  such  an  unbroken,  continuous  substance,  penetrat- 
ing all  bodies  and  filling  all  the  interstices  of  grosser 
matter,  and  acting  as  the  transmitting  medium  to 
the  forces  of  bodies,  ought  to  make  all  solids  and 
liquids  transparent  to  light,  heat,  and  electricity. 
Such  a  medium  ought  not,  at  least,  to  be  both  a  con- 
ductor and  a  non-conductor  of  electricity,  both  trans- 
parent and  opaque  to  light,  both  a  heat-transmitter 
and  a  heat-absorbent. 

Again,  if  the  ether  has  no  void  spaces  anywhere 
in  it,  then  it  must  absolutely  fill  space  full.  How, 
then,  is  any  of  that  motion  of  which  all  Mature  is 
full,  and  which  the  materialists  tell  us  constitutes 
all  varieties  of  force,  possible  ?  If  a  body  is  to  move 
with  momentum,  so  as  to  give  a  shock,  there  must 
be  space  for  it  to  move  through.  Before  it  can 
move  at  all,  there  must  be  a  free  space  for  it  to 
move  into.  If  it  pushes  weaker  matter  away  to 
make  room  for  itself,  then  there  must  be  free  space 
for  that  weaker  matter  to  move  into.  If  all  space 
be  already  full,  motion  is  impossible.    Theoretically, 


142   PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

then,  the  ether  cannot  be  destitute  of  void  intervals 
between  its  parts ;  and,  in  point  of  fact,  physicists 
regard  it,  like  all  other  matter,  as  composed  of  its 
separate  ethereal  atoms,  situated  at  distances  which, 
in  proportion  to  the  size  of  the  ether-atom,  are  fully 
as  great  as,  if  not  vastly  greater  than,  the  intervals  oi 
common  matter.  Subtile,  then,  as  is  the  hypothesis 
of  an  omnipresent  ethereal  medium,  pressing  all 
matter  together,  the  difficulty  of  action  at  a  distance 
remains  undiminished. 

If  the  leaping  of  force  over  the  ninety-two  mill- 
ion miles  of  celestial  space  that  separates  the  sun  from 
the  earth  requires  either  an  intervening  medium 
through  which  it  may  act,  or  some  other  interpreta- 
tion of  it  than  as  transmission  of  material  motion  or 
pressure  or  other  quality  seated  in  matter,  equally 
does  the  passage  over  the  minutest  atomic  interval ; 
and,  as  we  cannot  go  on  forever  imagining  finer 
and  finer  media — as  we  must  somewhere  leave  the 
room  that  will  give  opportunity  for  motion — ought 
we  not  frankly  to  accept  the  opposite  alternative — 
the  acceptance  of  force  as  something  capable  of  act- 
ing, and  therefore  existing  where  matter  does  not 
exist,  as,  in  fine,  an  immaterial  principle  ? 

Perhaps  it  may  be  said  that  Le  Sage's  famous 
hypothesis,  which  Sir  William  Thomson  recently  re- 
suscitated, is  sufficient'to  explain  gravitation  and  all 
other  kinds  of  attractive  force  without  supposing 
any  thing  else  than  motions  and  qualities  of  matter. 
This  hypothesis  supposes  that  an  infinity  of  atoms 


FAITHS   OF  SCIEXCE.  143 

fly  with  excessive  velocity  through  all  mundane 
regions,  inward  bound  from  the  immensity  of  ultra- 
mundane space.  Ceaselessly  pelting  all  objects  on 
all  sides,  the  result  is  that  any  two  objects  at  a  cer- 
tain distance  apart  will,  in  reference  to  each  other, 
be  mutually  screened  from  this  bombardment  on  the 
faces  looking  toward  each  other,  and  will  thus  be 
reciprocally  attracted.  This  is  certainly  the  boldest, 
the  most  ingenious,  the  most  purely  mechanical  of 
all  explanations  of  attractive  force.  But,  leaving 
unnoticed  its  pure  hypotheticalness  and  transcend- 
ence of  all  possible  experience,  this  theory  but  re- 
moves  its  difficulties  to  other  points.  Whence  is 
derived  this  celestial  storm?  We  must  go  outside 
the  world  of  stars  for  that.  On  this  theory,  as  on 
that  of  Challis,1  "  the  universe  is  not  even  tempora- 
rily automatic,  but  must  be  fed  from  moment  to 
moment  by  an  agency  external  to  itself."  The 
drawing  together  of  bodies  may  possibly  be  ex- 
plained by  the  pressure  of  such  an  atomic  hailstorm ; 
but  it  presents  no  explanation  of  what  is  equally  in- 
consistent with  any  interpretation  of  force  as  a  trans- 
mission of  material  motion  or  pressure,  namely,  the 
repulsive  powers  exhibited  by  gases,  and  by  solids 
and  fluids  when  heated,  magnetized,  or  electrified. 
Moreover,  it  brings  us  squarely  up  against  another 
form  of  physical  force,  explicable  only  as  an  imma- 
terial principle.  I  mean  the  force  of  elasticity.  If 
•these  invisible  pelting  atoms  be  hard  and  inelastic^ 

1  American  Journal  of  Science  and  Arts,  October,  1874,  p.  306. 


144    PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

then  every  time  they  strike  a  body  they  must  lose 
some  of  their  energy.  As  Sir  John  Herschel '  says, 
"  in  the  collision  of  inelastic  bodies,  vis  viva  is  ne- 
cessarily and  invariably  destroyed.  .  .  .  Taking  such 
a  system  in  its  entirety  (where  force  exists  not),  there 
is  no  possibility  of  its  reproduction.  .  .  .  Such  an 
arrangement  must  of  necessity  be  rapidly  self -de- 
structive, and  must  result  in  the  gradual  but  speedy 
dying  away  of  all  relative  motion." 

In  order,  then,  that  the  system  of  Nature  be 
conceived  as  permanent,  in  order  that  our  theory 
may  harmonize  with  the  observed  constancy  of  the 
physical  forces,  the  atoms  must  be  capable  of  so  re- 
bounding that  after  a  collision  thev  shall  have  the 
same  velocity  as  before.  This  Sir  William  Thomson 
perceived,  and  in  his  reconstruction  of  Le  Sage's 
theory  employed  as  materials,  not  hard  atoms,  but 
molecules  of  perfect  elasticity. 

But  whence  is  this  elasticity  obtained,  and  what 
is  the  nature  of  elastic  force  %  This  is  an  inquiry, 
important  not  only  in  this  connection,  but  for  any 
adequate  explanation  of  all  those  numerous  phenom- 
ena, in  solids,  in  fluids,  especially  in  gases,  in  which 
elasticity  is  involved.  Take  a  gas,  for  example, 
which  presses  on  all  sides  upon  the  envelope  con- 
taining it.  The  mechanical  explanation  of  this  is, 
that  the  gas  is  constituted  of  material  particles  which 
move  in  all  possible  directions,  each  in  a  right  line, 
and  which  change  direction  without  change  of  ve- 


i  << 


Familiar  Lectures,"  pp.  465,  466. 


FAITHS   OF  SCIENCE.  145 

locity  where  they  meet  a  fixed  obstacle.  The  press- 
ure of  the  gas  is  due  to  the  shocks  of  the  gaseous 
molecules  against  the  containing  walls.  JNow,  such 
an  inclosed  gas,  if  left  in  an  hermetical  vessel,  does 
not  gradually  lose  its  force  of  pressure  till  it  be- 
comes nothing,  but  retains  it  undiminished.  This 
simple  fact  implies  that  the  gaseous  molecules,  when 
they  strike  their  containing  walls  or  collide  with  one 
another,  as  they  are  continually  doing,  rebound  with 
the  same  velocity  with  which  they  struck.  We  say 
this  is  because  the  gaseous  molecules  possess  elastic 
force,  and  imagine  the  matter  explained.  But  let 
us  follow  out  in  thought  the  course  of  a  molecule 
when  it  strikes  an  obstacle  and  rebounds,  and  we 
may  not,  perhaps,  be  so  easily  satisfied.  First,  upon 
the  occurrence  of  a  collision,  the  molecule  loses  all 
its  own  velocity,  it  comes  to  a  dead  halt  for  an  infi- 
nitely short  instant,  and  then  it  regains  an  equal  ve- 
locity in  a  contrary  direction.  We  see,  then,  that  to 
effect  this,  there  must  be  something  which  is  capa- 
ble, first,  of  destroying  established  movement ;  then, 
when  the  body  has  been  brought  to  a  state  of  repose, 
starting  it  again  with  a  velocity  equal  to  what  it  had 
before.  What,  then,  is  the  nature  of  this  something, 
possessed  of  so  great  and  unique  a  power  ?  Does  it 
reside  in  the  material  atom  as  one  of  its  properties  ? 
Let  us  compress  our  gas,  observe  the  relation  of  its 
temperature  under  compression  to  the  degree  of 
compression,  and  we  shall  have  a  crucial  test  which 
will  tell  us  whether  the  material  atoms  are  elastic 
7 


146    PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

and  variable  in  volume  or  not.  If  the  atoms  them- 
selves are  elastic  and  variable  in  volume,  then  the 
gas,  the  sum  of  them,  may  be  compressed  without 
increasing  the  atomic  motion,  that  is,  the  heat  in  the 
gas ;  and  after  compression  the  atoms  may  expand 
without  requiring  any  expenditure  of  atomic  motion 
or  thermal  energy.  But  if  the  atoms  be  not  them- 
selves elastic  or  variable  in  volume,  then  compression 
of  the  gas  signifies  a  lessening  of  the  atomic  inter- 
vals, and  consequently  a  greater  atomic  velocity  or 
heat,  and  the  reexpansion  of  the  gas  would  require 
the  expenditure  again  of  this  atomic  motion  to  re- 
store the  atoms  to  their  previous  stations. 

The  opposite  results  of  the  two  hypotheses  are 
then  clear.  Equally  clear  is  the  decisive  auswer  of 
all  thermodynamical  experiments,  that  there  is  no 
compression  without  a  corresponding  production  of 
heat,  and  no  expansion  of  a  compressed  body  against 
pressure  without  the  expenditure  of  heat.  The 
whole  science  of  thermodynamics  rests  on  the  defi- 
nite and  constant  correlation  of  work  and  heat,  and 
is  incompatible  with  variability  of  volume  in  the 
atoms.1 

Can  the  elastic  rebound,  then,  be  the  result  in 
each  case  of  some  anterior  motion,  in  accordance 
with  the  view  of  these  pure  materialists  who  would 
hold  as  a  first  law,  "  no  motion  without  anterior 
motion  ? "     The  sufficient  answer  is  that,  in  the  case 

1  See  "  Consequences  de  la  Thermodynamique,"  par  G.  A.  Him, 
p.  208. 


FAITHS   OF  SCIEXCE.  147 

of  the  elastic  rebound,  the  resilient  motion  is  sepa- 
rated from  all  previous  motion  by  an  instant,  infinite- 
ly short,  perhaps,  but  still  an  actual  instant  of  rest, 
during  which  the  direction  of  movement  is  reversed. 
The  difficulty  cannot  be  escaped. 

Suppose,  even,  we-  say  that  the  atom,  like  an 
ivory  ball,  changes  its  form  upon  collision  with  an 
object,  that  it  is  composed  of  component  parts,  and 
that  an  internal  vibratory  movement  of  them  is  set 
up,  in  consequence  of  which  the  atom  first  seeks  to 
regain  its  old  form,  and  next,  this  internal  motion, 
passing  into  translatory  motion,  the  whole  atom  re- 
bounds— the  difficulty  is  only  transferred  from  the 
whole  atom  to  the  component  particles  or  atoms  of 
the  atom.  "Whence  the  tendency  of  one  of  these 
particles  to  return  to  its  place  ?  What  is  the  force 
that,  when  it  has  swung  to  its  farthest  limit  and 
stops  then  for  its  infinitesimal  second  of  rest,  starts  it 
from  rest  into  motion  ?  jSTo  anterior  motion  can 
explain  this,  for  between  the  anterior  and  the  pos- 
terior motion  is  always  this  intervening  moment  of 
rest.1 

If,  as  Du  Bois-Keymond  says,  and  as  is  logically 
required  by  the  very  conception  of  it,  "  the  proper- 
ties of  matter  can  neither  be  extended  outside  of 
itself  nor  transferred  to  other  material  objects," 
then  they  are  plainly  unequal  to  explaining  the  phe- 
nomena of  elasticity  as  well  as  those  of  attraction 

1 "  Consequences   de  la   Thermodynamique,"   par   G.  A.  Hirn, 
livre  ii.,  chapitre  i. 


14S    PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

and  repulsion.  To  explain  adequately  these  funda- 
mental, constant,  and  ubiquitous  properties  of  Na- 
ture, we  must  conceive  force,  not  as  the  materialists 
tell  us  we  can  alone  properly  conceive  it,  as  "  the 
property  inseparable  from  and  eternally  inherent  in 
matter,"  as  "  a  motion  arising  from  some  previous 
motion  and  acting  through  bodily  contact  or  inter- 
vening medium,"  but  as  the  very  reverse  of  that — 
as  a  power  which  does  not  depend  on  anterior  mo- 
tion, which  can  exist  and  act  where  no  material  me- 
dium is  present — in  short,  as  an  immaterial  principle. 
But  if  Science  can  find  explanation  of  many  of  its 
most  fundamental  phenomena  only  in  such  a  prin- 
ciple, why  should  it  be  called  "  a  speculative  fable  ' 
when  presented  by  the  religious  thinker  ?  If  even 
in  physical  relations  the  difficulties  in  getting  along 
without  supposing  the  immaterial  are  greater  than 
the  difficulty  of  supposing  it,  why  in  spiritual  rela- 
tions, also,  may  not  it  be  credited  as  being  some- 
thing more  than  "  naught  ?" 

But  the  beliefs  of  religion,  it  will  be  replied,  are 
directed  to  that  which  it  is  not  merely  difficult  to 
know,  but  which  it  is  impossible  to  know — some- 
thing which  is  absolutely  inconceivable.  All  our 
knowledge  is  relative,  that  is,  a  knowledge  of  a 
thing  through  its  relations  and  contrasts  with  some- 
thing else.  How,  then,  can  we  know  the  Absolute, 
the  One  Supreme,  existing  in  and  by  himself  ?  All 
our  knowledge  is  of  appearances  and  through  the 
senses.     How,  then,  can  we  know  that  which  is  said 


FAITHS   OF  SCIENCE.  149 

to  lie  beyond  appearances,  and  is  certainly  inacces- 
sible to  the  senses — spirit  \ 

Man,  and  all  that  belongs  to  him,  is  finite.  He 
passes  his  few  fleeting  days,  indeed,  as  a  pigmy,  in 
a  little  corner  of  the  universe.  Even  in  his  bright- 
est achievements  his  powers  are  narrowly  limited. 
There  is  nothing  infinite  either  in  his  experi- 
ences or  in  his  nature.  How,  then,  can  he  conceive 
the  Infinite  ?  If,  even  in  imagination,  he  seek  to 
follow  out  any  mode  of  the  infinite,  he  ever  falls 
short — no  matter  how  immense  his  mental  flight — 
within  the  bounds  of  the  finite.  Were  it  possible  to 
follow  through  in  thought  an  infinite  whole,  an  infi- 
nite time  would  be  required  for  the  operation. 
Theologians  may  talk  glibly  of  soul  and  over-soul, 
creator  and  creation,  absolute  and  infinite ;  they 
may  fancy  that  they  understand  them ;  but  they  are 
only  deceiving  themselves,  mistaking  familiarity 
with  words  for  a  genuine  understanding  of  things. 
Their  high-sounding  terms  are  but  covers  to  their 
real  ignorance.  The  realities  themselves,  if  there 
are  realities  here,  are  mysteries  beyond  all  compre- 
hension. The  endeavor  to  conceive  of  any  of  them 
is,  as  Strauss  says  of  the  idea  of  a  Creator,  but 
"  merely  dealing  with  an  idle  phantasy."  This  is 
no  trumped-up  objection,  due  to  the  envy  of  Science. 
It  is  a  difficulty  which  metaphysicians  and  theologi- 
ans themselves  have  recognized  and  stated,  a  diffi- 
culty which  beset  the  path  of  the  most  ancient 
thinkers,  which  has  been  affirmed  by  the  acutest 


150    PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

intellects  of  modern  times,  such  as  Pascal,  Kant, 
Hamilton,  and  Mansel,  and  which  is  fatal  to  the 
claims  of  religion.  Yalid  knowledge  is  to  be  found 
only  by  confining  ourselves  strictly  to  that  realm 
to  which  Science  limits  herself — the  realm  of  the 
conceivable,  that  is,  of  the  relative  and  the  phenom- 
enal. 

Let  us  see  how  this  is.  It  is,  indeed,  the  com- 
mon aim  of  Science  to  keep  within  the  field,  not  of 
phenomena,  for  we  have  seen  that  its  highest  tri- 
umphs are  in  the  regions  above  phenomena,  but  of 
that  which  can  be  readily  demonstrated  and  verified, 
and  which  can  be  clearly  comprehended.  And  su- 
perficial observers,  who  notice  only  the  exactness  of 
its  measurements,  the  constancy  and  regularity  of  its 
laws,  the  rigor  of  its  demonstrations,  generally  fancy 
it  a  realm  absolutely  free  from  all  mysteries.  But 
the  genuine  savant,  who  is  not  content  with  the  regis- 
tration of  facts,  but  would  know  what  at  bottom  is 
their  significance  and  explanation,  knows  science  to 
be  a  region  of  very  different  character,  full  of  puz- 
zling perplexities  and  marvelous  hypotheses,  thick 
set  with  dilemmas  that  land  him  in  the  inconceiv- 
able, and  with  problems  that  have  to  be  given  up  as 
insoluble.  "  If  you  wish  to  be  initiated  into  the 
interior  of  physics,"  says  Xovalis,  "  you  must  be 
initiated  into  the  mysteries  of  poetry."  ~No  flight 
of  dramatist's  fancy  is  wilder  than  some  of  the 
sober  theories  of  mathematicians.  And,  the  more 
we  investigate  Nature,  the  more  miracles  we  find 


FAITHS  OF  SCIENCE.  151 

before  our  eyes.  As  Stanley  Jevons '  well  says : 
"  Scientific  method  must  begin  and  end  with  the 
laws  of  thought,  but  it  does  not  follow  that  it  will 
save  us  from  encountering  inexplicable,  and,  at 
least,  apparently  contradictory  results.  .  .  .  Science 
does  nothing  to  reduce  the  number  of  strange  things 
that  we  may  believe.  When  fairly  pursued  it  makes 
large  drafts  upon  our  powers  of  comprehension  and 
belief." 

There  is  no  force,  for  example,  better  established 
scientifically  than  the  force  of  gravity.  Yet  it  in- 
volves the  greatest  inconceivabilities.  It  possesses, 
in  the  first  place,  a  velocity  almost,  if  not  actually, 
instantaneous.  It  must  act  through  vacuous  space  ; 
if  not  vacuous  interstellar  space,  yet  vacuous  atomic 
intervals.  Not  only  does  it  thus  act  where  there  is 
no  intervening  medium,  but,  more  perplexing  still, 
in  perfect  indifference  to  all  intervening  obstacles. 
Light,  in  spite  of  its  velocity  and  the  etherealness 
of  its  medium,  is  either  stopped  or  deflected,  more 
or  less,  by  almost  every  substance ;  but  all  media 
are  to  gravity  perfectly  transparent ;  nothing  is  able 
either  to  reflect,  refract,  or  absorb  it ;  and  two  points 
on  opposite  sides  of  the  globe  attract  each  other  as 
if  there  were  absolutely  nothing  between  them. 

Again,  gravitation,  as  Faraday  has  shown,2  is  at 

1  "  Principles  of  Science,"  vol.  ii.,  pp.  466,  467. 

2  See  Faraday's  paper  on  the  "  Conservation  of  Force,"  pp.  364, 
366,  368,  "  Correlation  and  Conservation  of  Forces,"  edited  by  E. 
L.  Youmans,  M.  D. 


152    PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

odds  with  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  conser- 
vation of  energy,  and  also  with  that  of  inertia.  The 
received  idea  of  gravity  as  a  simple  attractive  force 
between  any  two  or  all  the  particles  or  masses,  at 
every  sensible  distance,  with  a  strength  varying  in- 
versely as  the  square  of  the  distance,  appears  to 
Faraday  to  involve  inconceivable  inconsistencies.  In 
the  case  of  the  diminution  of  the  distance,  say  to 
one-tenth,  and  the  consequent  increase  of  the  force 
a  hundred-fold,  it  implies  an  actual  creation  of  force, 
and  that  to  an  enormous  extent ;  and  in  the  reverse 
case,  where  the  distance  is  increased  tenfold  and  the 
power  diminished  to  a  hundredth  of  its  previous 
amount,  it  implies  an  actual  annihilation  of  force  ; 
effects  requiring  the  intervention  of  Infinite  Crea- 
tive Power. 

Again,  the  current  idea  of  gravity  supposes  that 
a  single  isolated  particle  would  have  no  gravitative 
force,  but  that,  the  moment  another  single  particle 
(which  by  itself  is  also  without  gravitative  force)  is 
placed  in  relation  to  it,  gravitative  force  springs  up 
in  both  particles.  This  also  implies  the  creation 
of  force  and  the  impossible  consequences  already 
referred  to. 

Again,  if  we  consider  the  mutual  gravitating  ac- 
tion of  one  particle  and  of  many,  the  particle  A 
will  attract  the  particle  B  at  the  distance  of  a  mile 
with  a  certain  degree  of  force  ;  it  will  attract  a  par- 
ticle C  at  the  same  distance  of  a  mile  with  an  equal 
power ;  if  myriads  of  like  particles  be   placed  at 


FAITHS   OF  SCIENCE.  153 

the  given  distance,  A  will  attract  each  with  equal 
force  ;  and  if  other  particles  be  accumulated  around 
it  within  the  sphere,  two  miles  in  diameter,  it  will 
attract  them  all  with  a  force  varying  inversely  with 
the  square  of  the  distance.  How  are  we  to  con- 
ceive of  this  force  growing  up  in  A  to  a  million- 
fold  or  more,  and,  if  the  surrounding  particles  be 
then  removed,  of  its  diminution  in  an  equal  degree, 
without  admitting,  according  to  the  received  defini- 
tion of  gravitation,  the  facile  generation  and  annihi- 
lation of  force  % 

Or,  if  we  take  into  consideration  that  property 
of  matter  which  is,  perhaps,  its  most  characteristic 
property,  that  of  inertia,  we  add  still  more  to  our 
difficulty.  When  two  particles  of  matter,  at  cer- 
tain distances  apart,  attract  each  other  and  approach, 
each,  through  that  inertia,  will  store  up  a  certain 
amount  of  mechanical  force,  due  to  the  force  exert- 
ed. According  to  the  doctrine  of  conservation,  an 
equivalent  portion  of  the  cause  of  attraction  must 
be  thereby  consumed  ;  and  yet,  according  to  the  law 
of  gravity,  the  attractive  force  is  not  diminished, 
but  increased  inversely  to  the  square  of  the  distance. 
Conversely,  if  mechanical  force  from  without  be 
used  to  separate  the  particles,  this  force  is  not  stored 
up  by  inertia,  but  disappears ;  and,  when  bodies 
have  been  moved  to  double  the  distance,  the  force 
is  only  one-fourth  as  great. 

If  gravity  is  a  property  of  matter,  and  possessed 
of  its  inertia,  these  results  are  truly  inconceivable ; 


154:  PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

and  if  we  regard  it,  as  has  been  urged,  as  an  imma- 
terial principle,  then  either  an  equal  inconceivability 
is  believed  by  Science,  or  Science  grants  the  funda- 
mental position  of  Religion — the  existence  and 
credibility  of  the  immaterial. 

Or,  take  the  undulatory  theory  of  light — another 
of  the  greatest  triumphs  of  Science — and  what  men- 
tal stumbling-blocks  present  themselves !  We  are 
asked  to  believe  that  the  infinitely  greater  bulk  of 
matter  in  the  universe  is  radically  different  from 
that  portion  of  it  which  comes  under  the  observa- 
tion of  our  senses,  and  makes  up  the  globe  we  live 
on ;  we  are  asked,  that  is,  to  violate  the  scientific 
principles  of  continuity,  and  of  judging  the  un- 
known by  the  known.  AVe  are  asked,  again,  to  be- 
lieve that  all  the  molecular  and  interstellar  spaces, 
though  they  seem  to  be  empty,  are  filled  with  a  me- 
dium whose  pressure,  as  before  was  noted,  is  cal- 
culated at  seventeen  billion  pounds  upon  every 
square  inch.  Though  thus  immensely  more  elastic 
and  solid  than  steel,  it  cannot  be  weighed  nor  seen, 
and  we  move  through  it  without  the  least  pressure 
from  it.  A  gaseous  medium,  like  air,  strongly  re- 
sists the  flight  thr ought  it  of  any  swiftly-moving 
body ;  but  the  immense  pressure  of  this  medium  has 
apparently  little  or  no  retarding  effect  either  upon 
the  larger  bodies  or  the  minute  atoms  constantly 
moving  in  it.  The  most  that  has  ever  been  attrib- 
uted to  it  is  a  slight  retardation  of  one  or  two  of 
those  most  feeble  and  unsubstantial  of  bodies,  the 


FAITHS   OF  SCIENCE.  155 

comets.  But,  if  the  ether  behaves  according  to  the 
universal  laws  of  matter,  it  is  impossible  for  bodies 
like  the  planets  or  the  atoms  to  move  themselves 
through  iis  dense  substance  without  the  expenditure 
of  force  in  pushing  it  aside,  and,  as  an  inevitable 
result,  a  continual  decrease  of  all  cosmical  motion. 
But  if,  nevertheless,  we  imagine,  as  bold  physicists 
have  done,  that  the  ether  is  exempt  from  this  law, 
and  suppose  that  it  is  frictionless — planets  and  at- 
oms swinging  in  it  without  loss  of  motion — then  we 
are  involved  in  an  equal  difficulty  ;  for,  as  the  ether 
takes  no  motion  from  the  bodies  moving  in  it,  it 
consequently  cannot  impart  nor  transmit  any  motion 
to  other  bodies,  and  the  whole  use  of  the  ether,  and 
the  necessity  for  supposing  it  as  the  medium  for 
transmitting  light  and  heat,  disappears. 

Such  are  the  inconceivabilities  and  contradictions 
which  we  plunge  into  in  the  study  of  just  two  spe- 
cial points  in  scientific  investigation.  If  we  were  to 
examine,  in  turn,  the  various  departments  of  physi- 
cal knowledge,  we  should  find  everywhere  only 
similar  results. 

Leaving  particular  difficulties,  let  us,  then,  in- 
quire into  that  which  is  the  seat  of  all  physical 
force,  the  subject  of  investigation  in  all  depart- 
ments of  Science — matter  itself  in  general.  It  is 
matter  and  its  qualities,  we  are  told,  that  explain 
every  thing.  What,  then,  is  this  "  matter  ? ':  "We 
generally  understand  by  it  the  common  substance 
of   all  bodies.      Bodies  have  many  qualities ;   but 


156    PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

the  two  qualities  common  to  all  bodies  are  volume 
and  force.  Considering  the  volume,  or  the  extension 
of  matter,  the  question  arises,  Is  that  divisible  or  in- 
divisible ?  Down  to  the  primary  atom,  it  is  univer- 
sally conceded  to  be  divisible  ;  then  comes  a  dilem- 
ma. If  we  say  it  is  indivisible,  that  is  something 
irreconcilable  with  its  possessing  volume  or  extent ; 
for,  however  infinitesimally  small,  as  long  as  it  has 
any  volume,  it  must  have  an  under  and  an  upper,  a 
right  or  a  left,  side  between  which  a  division  is  con- 
ceivable. If  the  atom  is  not  divisible,  it  cannot  be 
extended,  and  hence  cannot,  by  any  aggregation  of 
such  unextended  atoms,  make  an  extended  bodv. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  we  say,  as  Buchner  does,  that 
matter  is  divisible  ad  infinitum,  then  we  can  never 
arrive  at  what  constitutes  the  reality  of  it ;  for,  as 
long  as  a  thing  is  divisible,  it  is  a  compound,  and 
a  compound  has  no  reality  except  that  of  its  com- 
ponent parts  ;  and  as  no  portion  can  be  found,  not 
composed  of  smaller  parts,  we  shall  never  succeed 
in  arriving  at  the  ultimate  element  which  alone  can 
give  reality  to  the  aggregate.  Moreover,  as  the  pro- 
cess of  division  in  search  of  the  ultimate  parts  of 
matter  has  to  be  carried  on  beyond  any  finite  limit, 
those  ultimate  parts  must  be  less  than  any  finite  ex- 
tension, and  the  former  difficulty  again  occurs,  How 
can  they  make  up  an  extended  aggregate  ? ' 

Again,  if  we  consider  the  question  of  the  con- 

1  See  Janet's  "  Materialism  of  the  Present  Age,"  translated  by 
Gustave  Masson,  p.  45. 


FAITHS   OF  SCIENCE.  15  7 

tinuity  of  matter,  we  fall  into  similar  dilemmas.  If 
matter  be  continuous  throughout  all  space,  atom  in 
contact  with  atom,  then  all  differences  of  density, 
all  expansion  or  compression,  all  motion,  even,  ex- 
cept such  as  that  of  Descartes's  supposed  vortices,  is 
impossible.  On  the  other  hand,  if  matter  be  dis- 
continuous, then  we  must  either  believe  the  incon- 
ceivability that  matter  can  act  where  it  is  not,  or  we 
must  suppose  the  force  that  passes  through  the  void 
spaces  of  matter  is  not  inseparable  from  matter : 
that  is,  we  must  grant  the  postulate  of  Religion — the 
existence  and  action  of  the  immaterial. 

Taking  up,  next,  the  other  main  element  in  the 
.idea  of  matter,  its  force,  and  endeavoring  to  fol- 
low it  out  to  its  logical  result,  the  scientific  analyst 
finds  another  dead-wall  to  bruise  his  head.  Is  mat- 
ter conceivably  preexistent  to  force,  and  really  inde- 
pendent of  it,  though  practically  revealing  itself 
only  through  it  ?  So  some  seem  to  think.  But 
just  imagine  matter  separate  from  force,  and  what 
remains  of  it  \  Nothing  but  extension,  as  Janet 1 
has  well  pointed  out.  How,  then,  is  matter  in  itself 
distinguished  from  space?  How  can  a  portion  of 
matter  be  discriminated  from  the  portion  of  space 
corresponding  to  it  %  In  no  wise.  Suppose,  then, 
we  take  the  other  horn  of  the  dilemma — say  that 
force  is  the  inherent  quality  of  matter,  not  even  in 
thought  to  be  separated  from  it.  The  difference  of 
a  portion  of  matter  from  the  space  it  occupies  is 

1 "  Materialism  of  the  Present  Day,"  p.  47. 


15S   PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

now  plain.  It  differs  in  its  force.  But  as  this  is 
the  only  thing  it  differs  in — as  force  is  the  only 
other  factor  besides  extension  always  entering  into 
it — is  not  this  saying  just  what  the  opponents  of 
materialism  have  always  urged,  namely,  that  matter 
really  consists  in  simple  force,  located  in  space,  and 
that  the  conception  of  a  thing  besides,  called  matter, 
was  superfluous  j  "  What  do  we  know  of  an  atom 
apart  from  its  force  ? '  is  the  pertinent  question  of 
Faraday.  "  You  conceive  a  nucleus  that  may  be 
called  a,  and  you  surround  it  with  forces  that  may 
be  called  m.  To  my  mind,  your  a  or  nucleus  van- 
ishes, and  substance  consists  in  the  energy  of  ra." 

There  are,  it  is  true,  perhaps  the  scientist  will 
say,  many  things  which  we  believe  without  yet  un- 
derstanding them,  but  we  look  forward  to  in  time. 
But  the  mysteries  of  religion,  involving  as  they  do 
the  notions  of  infinity  and  self-existence,  are  abso- 
lute mysteries,  not  merely  now  incomprehensible, 
but  from  our  constitution  as  finite  beings  always  to 
remain  so.  I  do  not  care  here  to  discuss  this  ques- 
tion of  the  knowability  or  conceivability  of  the  Infi- 
nite. Were  I  to  do  so,  I  believe  that  it  would 
be  easy  to  show  that  this  supposed  difficulty  is 
entirely  due  to  certain  common  confusions  of  thought 
and  ambiguities  of  language.  That  which  is  incon- 
ceivable, because  of  its  contradiction  to  the  laws  of 
thought,  is  certainly  unbelievable.  But  that  which 
is  inconceivable  only  by  its  overpassing  the  limits 
of  our  powers  is  not,  therefore,  to  be  thought  non- 


FAITHS   OF  SCIENCE.  159 

existent.  That  which  is  unpicturable  to  the  imagi- 
nation may  jet  be  thinkable  by  the  reason.  That 
which  we  cannot  know  in  essence  we  may  yet  know 
in  its  attributes  and  relations.  That  which  we  can- 
not know  completely  we  may  yet  know  not  inade- 
quately and  not  untruly.  The  infinitude  of  an  ob- 
ject in  quantitative  respects  does  not  make  it  un- 
knowable in  its  qualitative  attributes.1  Spiritual 
things  are  not  graded  by  magnitude,  but  by  perfec- 
tion. 

If  we  bear  these  distinctions  in  mind,  we  shall 
not  be  troubled,  I  believe,  by  the  alleged  incon- 
ceivability of  the  infinite.  But  whether  or  not  the 
infinite  is  conceivable  or  knowable,  the  fact  remains 
— which  I  especially  desire  here  to  call  attention 
to — that  science  continually  employs  the  conception 
of  the  infinite,  without  hesitation,  and  builds  with 
it  many  of  its  proudest  structures.  In  mathematical 
calculations  it  is  continually  employed  without  dis- 
trust.    In  geometry  and  mechanics  the  idea  of  the 

1 A  cylinder  prolonged  to  infinity  does  not  cease  to  be  a  cylinder 
or  become  unknowable.  Infinite  space  is  still  space,  has  the  capaci- 
ty of  holding  extended  objects,  and  the  same  three  dimensions — 
length,  breadth,  and  thickness.  As  Lewes  justly  says,  laying  it 
down  as  an  important  formula :  "  The  existence  of  an  unknown 
quantity  does  not  necessarily  disturb  the  accuracy  of  calculations 
founded  on  the  known  functions  of  the  quantity." 

Thus,  to  give  his  illustration,  although  we  may  be  unable  to  an- 
swer the  question,  "  What  is  the  value  of  V  x  added  to  5  a;/  "  so 
long  as  x  remains  without  an  assigned  or  assignable  value,  we  are 
absolutely  certain  that  the  result  will  be  12  x,  whatever  value  x  may 
have. 


100   PHYSICAL   AXD   RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

infinite  plays  an  indispensable  role.      The  concep- 
tions of  the  line,  the  circle,  and  the  sphere,  are  in- 
conceivable except  through  conceptions  of  the  in- 
finitely small.     So  in  mechanics,  the  passage  from 
the  axioms  of  uniform  motion  to  other  forms  of 
motion  is  made  by  the  assumption  of  uniform  mo- 
tion  through   infinitesimal   intervals.      Astronomy 
and  geology,  on  the  other  hand,  lead  us  to  the  cor- 
relative infinitude,  the  infinitely  large.     As  the  tele- 
scope penetrates  into  space  it  brings  to  us  inevitably 
the  question,  "Is  there  a  limit  anywhere  to  space?'' 
That  there  should  be  a  limit  to  space,  a  boundary 
beyond  which  there  should  be  no  opportunity  for 
existence,  is  certainly  unthinkable ;  but,  if  so,  we 
must  accept  the  infinity  of    pace  with  whatever  in- 
conceivableness  properly  belongs  to  it.    As  the  geol- 
ogist traces  back  the  historv  of  the  world,  he  runs 
athwart   similar   dilemmas   attaching   to   time   and 
matter.     It  is  unthinkable  that  time  should  have  a 
limit  beyond  which  there  would  be  no  possibility  of 
duration  or  succession.     But  if  not,   then  infinite 
time,  with  its  opposite  inconceivability,  must  be  ac- 
cepted.    It  is  inconceivable  that  matter  should  have 
come  into  existence  out  of  nothing.     But  the  only 
alternative  is  the  equal  inconceivability,  that  matter 
has  existed  from  all  eternity.     If  theologians,  with 
their  ideas  of  creation,  are  guilty  of  believing  in  the 
first  members  of  these  pairs  of  inconceivables,  those 
who  reject  it  must  accept  the  second.     In  point  of 
fact  they  are  quite  generally  accepted  by  the  scien- 


FAITHS   OF  SCIEXCE.  161 

tific  world.  Mr.  Proctor,  in  his  lecture  upon  the 
"Infinities  around  us,"1  bears  testimony  to  the  ac- 
ceptance  by  the  astronomer  of  infinity  of  power, 
infinity  of  space,  and  infinity  of  time  in  the  uni- 
verse. Especially  do  those  who  belong  to  the  ma- 
terialistic school,  and  find  the  ideas  of  theism  incon- 
ceivable, make  without  scruple  the  most  confident 
affirmations  of  infinity.  Strauss,2  for  example,  de- 
clares that,  "if  we  contemplate  the  universe  as  a 
whole,  there  never  has  been  a  time  when  it  did  not 
exist,  ....  the  cosmos  itself,  the  sum  total  of  in- 
finite worlds  in  all  stages  of  growth  and  decay, 
abode  eternally  unchanged,  in  the  constancy  of  its 
absolute  energy,  amid  the  everlasting  revolution  and 
mutation  of  things."  Yogt  and  Biichner 3  lay  down, 
as  fundamental  principles  of  their  system,  the  eter- 
nity of  matter  and  the  immortality  of  force. 

Prof.  Haeckel,  of  Jena,  whose  book,  "  Generelle 
Morphologie  cler  Organismen,"  has  been  called  "the 
Bible  of  Darwinism,"  says  of  the  theory  of  creation 
(book  ii.,  chapter  vi.,  sec.  2):  "The  acceptation  of 
this  is  quite  incompatible  with  one  of  the  first  and 
chiefest  of  Nature's  laws,  one,  indeed,  universally 
acknowledged — namely,  with  the  great  law  that  all 
matter  is  eternal" 

Even  Herbert  Spencer  falls  into  the  same  pit. 
Though  he  has  branded  all  ideas  which  involve  infi- 

1  Tribune  Extra,  No.  15. 

2  "The  Old  Faith  and  the  New,"  pp.  173,  174,  American  edition. 
8  See  "  Force  and  Matter,"  chapters  ii.  and  iii. 


162   PHYSICAL  AXD  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

nite  self -existence  as  "pseudo-ideas,"  and  consequent- 
ly condemned  all  forms  of  theism,  pantheism,  and 
materialism,  as  inevitably  involving  such  inconceiva- 
bilities,1 no  sooner  has  he  put  theology,  as  he  thinks, 
Tiors  cle  comhat,  and  gone  on  to  his  positive  scientific 
construction,  than  he  tells  us  that  matter  was  both 
uncreated  and  is  indestructible,  and  that  force  al- 
ways persists  in  unchanged  quantity,2  ideas  neces- 
sarily involving  infinite  duration  both  in  the  past 
and  in  the  future.  Yet  if  the  infinite  is  an  incon- 
ceivable thing,  a  pseudo-idea,  a  symbolic  conception 
of  the  illegitimate  order,  what  saves  these  scientific 
conceptions  from  vitiation  by  it  ?  AVhen  the  wariest 
thinker  is  driven  by  continual  dilemmas  into  accept- 
ing; inconceivabilitv  either  on  one  side  or  the  other, 
"  why  then,"  as  Proctor  asks,  "  dismiss  the  idea  of 
a  God  merely  because  he  is  beyond  our  powers 
of  conception  ? "  The  principle  on  which  religion 
reasons  up  to  the  infinite  is  not  different  from  that 
employed  by  the  mathematician,  the  geometer,  or 
the  astronomer,  for  the  same  purpose.  It  is,  in  fact, 
the  same,  the  peculiar  and  fundamental  conception 
of  a  limit,  "the  use  of  which,"  in  proving  the 
propositions  of  the  higher  geometry,  Whewell  says, 
"  cannot  be  superseded  by  any  combination  of  hy- 
potheses and  definitions." 

"  This  principle  of  a  limit,"  continues  Whewell, 
"  leads  to  all  the  results  which  form  the  subject  of 

1  "  First  Principles,"  Part  I.,  chapters  ii.  and  iv. 

2  Ibid.,  Part  II.,  chapters  iv.  and  vi. 


FAITHS   OF  SCIENCE.  1(JS 

the  higher  mathematics,  whether  proved  by  the  con- 
sideration of  evanescent  triangles,  by  the  processes 
of  the  differential  calculus,  or  in  any  other  way." 
In  fact  it  is  "  when  such  processes  as  JSTewton  de- 
duced from  the  conception  of  a  limit  are  represented 
by  general  algebraical  symbols,  instead  of  geomet- 
rical diagrams,"  that  "  we  have  then  before  us  the 
method  of  fluxions,  or  the  differential  calculus,  a 
method  of  treating  mathematical  problems  justly 
considered  as  the  principal  weapon  by  which  the 
splendid  triumphs  of  modern  mathematics  have  been 
achieved."  ' 

The  axiom  which  rules  in  all  these  processes  is 
simply  that  "  what  is  true  up  to  a  limit  is  true  at 
that  limit."  Applying  this  to  the  limit  of  infinity, 
it  gives  us  the  rule  that  what  is  true  throughout  all 
finite  grades,  up  to  the  infinite,  is  true  at  the  infi- 
nite. What  better  vindication  from  science  could 
theology  desire  for  its  constant  claim  that  the  qual- 
ities of  justice,  love,  wisdom,  and  holiness,  mani- 
fested throughout  the  finite  and  phenomenal  scale, 
shining  out  the  more  clearly  the  higher  the  grade  of 
being,  must  exist  in  the  infinite  reality  above  and 
behind  the  finite  phenomena ;  and  that,  moreover, 
this  infinite  justice,  love,  and  holiness,  is  not  per- 
haps radically  different  from  its  finite  manifesta- 
tions, but,  however  immensely  greater  and  more 
perfect,  is  essentially  the  same  % 

1  Whewell's  "History  of  Scientific  Ideas,"  vol.  i.,  pp.  152,  158, 


164  PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 


CHAPTER  YL 

SCIENTIFIC    RESULTS. THEIR    UNCERTAINTY,     INEXACT- 
NESS,   AND    VARIABILITY. 

There  is  still  one  other  difference  often  insisted 
upon  as  justifying  a  difference  in  the  comparative 
credit  given  to  science  and  religion — the  difference 
of  results. 

Though  religion  may  perhaps  use  the  same  meth- 
ods as  science  and  aim  at  no  more  transcendental 
objects,  yet,  in  practice,  it  is  charged  that  she  is  never 
able  to  reach  the  exactness  and  the  certainty  for 
which  science  is  distinguished.  When  science  once 
puts  her  foot  down,  she  never  draws  back.  The 
received  truths  and  forms  of  religion,  on  the  other 
hand,  are  continually  shifting.  Its  early  phases 
were  often  gross  and  full  of  errors.  Neither  moral- 
ity nor  faith  has  any  absolute  standard,  any  unre- 
treating  course. 

Again  I  answer,  these  are  charges  to  which 
science  as  well  as  religion  lies  open.  Xt>  difference 
exists  here  sufficient  to  justify  contempt  or  disregard 
for  religion  on  the  part  of  scientific  men,  or  those 
who  accept  current  scientific  doctrines  and  results. 

No  instance  of  sense  observation  is  entirely  ex- 


SCIENTIFIC  RESULTS.  165 

empt  from  the  possibility  of  error  or  delusion.  As 
has  been  already  noticed,  every  sense  has  its  limits, 
beyond  which  it  fails  either  to  discriminate  or  to 
perceive  at  all.  Unusual  conditions  of  observation 
cause  mistakes  in  perception.  Cross  the  fingers,  and, 
while  the  eyes  are  shut,  put  a  cherry  between  the  sides 
usually  separated,  and  two  cherries,  instead  of  one 
cherry,  are  felt.  A  torch  whirled  rapidly,  or  drops  of 
water  falling  swiftly,  seem  to  form  a  continuous  line, 
the  separate  impressions  running  into  each  other. 
AVithout  surveying  the  particular  defects  of  all  the 
senses,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  look  at  that  sense 
which  is  most  wonderful  and  perfect — vision.  Its 
perfection  is  not  absolute,  but  merely  practical. 

Prof.  Helmholtz,  in  his  lecture  on  "  The  Recent 
Progress  of  the  Theory  of  Vision,"  gives  a  cata- 
logue of  some  of  the  principal  defects  of  the  eye : 

1.  Chromatic  aberration. 

2.  Spherical  aberration  and  defective  centring 
of  the  cornea  and  lens,  together  with  the  first  de- 
fect, producing  the  imperfection  known  "as  astig- 
matism. 

3.  Irregular  radiation  around  the  images  of  illu- 
minated points. 

Helmholtz  considers  these  defects  so  grave  that 
he  declares  that  "  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that,  if 
an  optician  wanted  to  sell  me  an  instrument  which 
had  all  these  defects,  I  should-  think  myself  quite 
justified  in  blaming  his  carelessness  in  the  strongest 
terms,  and  giving  him  back  his  instrument." 


166   PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

He  then  goes  on  to  other  faults : 

4.  Defective  transparency. 

5.  Floating  corpuscles  (muscce  volitantes). 

6.  The  blind  spot,  with  other  gaps  in  the  field 
of  vision. 

But  this  is  not  all.  "  The  inaccuracies  and  im7 
perfections  of  the  eye,  as  an  optical  instrument, 
and  those  which  belong  to  the  image  on  the  retina, 
now  appear  insignificant  in  comparison  with  the  in- 
congruities which  we  have  met  with  in  the  field  of 
sensation.  One  might  almost  believe  that  Nature 
had  here  contradicted  herself  on  purpose,  in  order 
to  destroy  any  dream  of  a  preexisting  harmony 
between  the  outer  and  the  inner  world.    .    .   . 

"  In  general,  then,  light,  which  consists  of  undu- 
lations of  different  wave-lengths,  produces  different 
impressions  upon  our  eye,  namely,  those  of  different 
colors.  But  the  number  of  lines  which  we  can  recog- 
nize is  much  smaller  than  that  of  the  various  possible 
combinations  of  rays  with  different  wave-lengths 
which  external  objects  can  convey  to  our  eyes.  The 
retina  cannot  distinguish  between  the  white  which  is 
produced  by  the  union  of  scarlet  and  bluish-green 
light,  and  that  which  is  composed  of  yellowish-green 
and  violet,  or  of  yellow  and  ultra-marine  blue,  or  of 
red,  green,  and  violet,  or  of  all  the  colors  of  the  spec- 
trum united.  All  these  combinations  appear  iden- 
tically as  white,  and  yet,  from  a  physical  point  of 
view,  they  are  very  different." 

Again,  the  eye  cannot  correctly  estimate  the  com- 


SCIENTIFIC  RESULTS.  167 

parative  brightness  of  two  luminous  bodies  which 
differ  very  much  in  brilliancy,  for  we  know  that  the 
eye  is  constantly  adjusting  itself  to  the  intensity  of 
the  light  received,  and  thus  admits  more  or  less  light 
according  to  circumstances.  The  moon,  so  bright 
at  night,  is  pale  and  nearly  imperceptible  while  the 
eye  is  yet  affected  by  the  vastly  more  powerful  light 
of  day.  For  this  reason  it  is  difficult  to  estimate 
any  change  in  the  form  or  comparative  brightness 
of  nebulae,  or  of  the  zodiacal  light.  The  appear- 
ance depends  greatly  on  the  varying  darkness  of  the 
night  and  the  keenness  of  sight  of  the  observer,  or 
the  freshness  or  fatigue  of  the  eye.  In  judging  of 
colors,  again,  there  is  a  difficulty  arising  from  the 
fact  that  light  of  a  given  color  tends  to  dull  the 
sensibility  of  the  eye  for  light  of  the  same  color. 

N o  one  has  given  a  more  compact  catalogue  of 
ways  in  which  the  senses  are  found  insufficient  than 
Lord  Bacon  in  the  "  Xovum  Organum."  "  Things 
escape  the  senses,"  he  says,  "  because  the  object  is 
not  sufficient  in  quantity  to  strike  the  senses,  as  all 
minute  bodies ;  because  the  percussion  of  the  body 
is  too  great  to  be  endured  by  the  senses,  as  the 
form  of  the  sun,  when  looking  directly  at  it  in  mid- 
day ;  because  the  time  is  not  proportionate  to  actuate 
the  sense,  as  the  motion  of  a  bullet  in  the  air,  or 
the  quick,  circular  motions  of  a  firebrand  which  are 
too  fast,  or  the  hour-hand  of  a  common  clock,  which 
is  too  slow ;  from  the  distance  of  the  object  as  to 
place,  as  the  size  of  the  celestial  bodies,  and  the 


1 6  S    PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIO  US  KXO  WLED  GE. 

size  and  nature  of  all  distant  bodies ;  from  prepos- 
session by  another  object,  as  one  powerful  smell 
renders  other  smells  in  the  same  room  impercepti- 
ble; from  the  interruption  of  opposing  bodies,  as 
the  internal  parts  of  animals ;  and  because  the  ob- 
ject is  unfit  to  make  an  impression  upon  the  sense, 
as  the  air,  or  the  invisible  or  untangible  spirit  which 
is  included  in  every  living  body." 

Moreover,  besides  these  bodily  hinderances  to 
correct  observation,  there  are  the  mental  hinderances. 
Even  when  the  utmost  care  is  used  in  observing  and 
recording,  tendencies  to  error  exist.  Almost  every 
observer  has  a  bias  that  affects,  more  or  less,  his  ob- 
servations. The  mind  of  man,  as  Bacon  said,  is  an 
uneven  mirror,  and  does  not  reflect  the  events  of 
Nature  without  distortion. 

Again,  there  may  be  circumstances  connected 
with  the  object  observed  which  may  tend  to  dis- 
tort it  or  cause  us  to  observe  it  one-sidedly.-  There 
is  always,  for  example,  a  prevailing  fallacy,  that  our 
ancestors  built  more  strongly  than  we  do,  arising 
from  the  fact  that  the  more  fragile  structures  have 
long  since  melted  away.  Prof.  De  Morgan  has 
mentioned  four  ways  in  which  one  event  may  seem 
to  follow,  or  be  connected  with  another,  without 
really  being  so.1 

In  consequence  of  these  hinderances  and  pitfalls, 
the  various  sciences  will  lack  more  or  less  of  the 
certainty  commonly  attributed  to  them.    None  have 

1  See  "Essay  on  Probabilities,"  Cabinet  Cyclopaedia,  p.  121. 


SCIEXTIFIC  RESULTS.  169 

done  more  to  show  this  than  the  men  of  science 
themselves.  Dr.  W.  B.  Carpenter,  speaking  of  the 
general  belief  that  the  scientific  interpretation  of 
Nature  represents  her  not  merely  as  she  seems,  but 
as  she  really  is,  says :  "  When,  however,  we  care- 
full  v  examine  the  foundation  of  that  assurance,  we 
find  reason  to  distrust  its 'security,  for  it  can  be 
shown  to  be  no  less  true  of  the  scientific  conception 
of  Nature  than  it  is  of  the  artistic  or  poetic  that  it 
is  a  representation  framed  by  the  mind  itself  out  of 
the  material  supplied  by  the  impressions  which  ex- 
ternal objects  make  upon  the  senses,  so  that  to  each 
man  of  science  Nature  is  what  he  individually  be- 
lieves her  to  be."  Prof.  Kingdon  Clifford,  in  his 
lecture  upon  the  "  Aims  and  Instruments  of  Scien- 
tific Thought,"  delivered  before  the  British  Asso- 
ciation at  Brighton,  IS 72,  discusses  at  considerable 
length  the  question,  "  What  do  wTe  mean  when  we 
say  that  the  uniformity  of  Nature  is  exact  ? "  and 
concludes  that  we  mean  by  it  "  no  more  than  this, 
that  we  are  able  to  state  general  rules  which  are  far 
more  exact  than  direct  experiment,  and  which  apply 
to  all  cases  that  we  are  at  present  likely  to  come 
across."    . 

Not  only  in  general  do  scientific  men  admit  the 
imperfections  and  inexactitude  of  science,  but,  in 
particular.  Dr.  Paget,  in  mentioning  the  advantages 
of  the  study  of  physiology,  mentions  as  one  of  them, 
the  fact  that  it  is  "  a  very  uncertain  and  incomplete 
science,"  well  adapted,  therefore,  he  thinks,  to  disa- 
8 


170    PHYSICAL  AXD  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

buse  young  men  of  the  too  prevalent  idea  that  a 
plain  yes  or  no  can  be  answered  to  every  question 
that  can  be  plainly  asked,  and  that  every  thing  thus 
answered  is  a  settled  thing,  and  to  be  maintained  as  a 
point  of  conscience.  Herbert  Spencer  has  recently 
shown,  in  his  volume  on  the  "  Study  of  Sociology," 
the  uncertainties  that  beset  social  science.  The 
phenomena  to  be  studied  here,  he  states,  are  not  of  a 
directly  perceptible  kind,  to  be  examined  by  scientific 
instruments,  like  those  of  astronomy  or  chemistry, 
nor  are  they  to  be  recognized  by  introspection,  like 
the  phenomena  of  psychology.  The  disturbance  of 
the  various  emotions  and  prejudices  of  the  observers, 
the  political,  educational,  patriotic,  theological,  and 
class  biases,  add  to  the  difficulty.  Thirdly,  a  danger 
still  more  subtile  and  difficult  to  escape  from  arises 
from  the  exceptional  position  of  the  observer,  who 
is  inevitably  himself  a  part  of  the  very  aggregate 
that  he  studies,  and  cannot  divest  himself  of  the 
personal  interests  and  partial  predispositions  arising 
therefrom. 

In  regard  to  political  economy,  what  Daniel 
Webster  said  in  1830  is  still,  in  great  measure,  ap- 
plicable. "  For  my  part,"  says  Webster,  "  though 
I  like  investigation  of  political  questions,  I  give  up 
what  is  called  the  '  science  of  political  economy.' 
There  is  no  such  science.  There  are  no  rules  on 
the  subject  so  fixed  and  invariable  as  that  their  ag- 
gregate constitutes  a  science.  I  believe  I  have  re- 
cently run  over  twenty  volumes,  and  from  the  whole, 


SCIENTIFIC  RESULTS.  171 

if  I  should  pick  out  with  one  hand  all  the  mere 
truisms,  and  with  the  other  all  the  doubtful  propo- 
sitions, little  would  be  left."  Although  since  then 
we  have  had  the  able  and  laborious  investigations 
of  Mill,  Bastiat,  and  Carey,  nevertheless,  I  believe 
there  is  little  more  general  agreement  among  politi- 
cal economists,  and  few  more  invariable  rules  that 
are  unanimously  accepted. 

Even  the  most  exact  of  sciences,  astronomy,  is 
far  from  perfectly  exact.  "Many  persons,"  says 
Jevons,1  "may  be  misled  by  the  expression  exact 
science,  and  may  think  that  the  knowledge  acquired 
by  scientific  methods  admits  of  our  reaching  abso- 
lutely true  laws,  exact  to  the  last  degree.  .  .  .  The 
very  satisfactory  degree  of  accuracy  attained  in  the 
science  of  astronomy  gives  a  certain  plausibility  to 
erroneous  notions  of  this  kind.  .  .  .  Kepler's  laws 
are  not  proved,  if  by  proof  we  mean  certain  demon- 
stration of  their  exact  truth.  Even  if  we  could  ob- 
serve the  motions  of  a  planet  of  a  perfect  globular 
shape,  free  from  all  perturbing  or  retarding  forces, 
we  could  never  perfectly  prove  that  it  moved  in  an 
ellipse.  To  prove  the  elliptical  form  we  should  have 
to  measure  infinitely  small  angles  and  infinitely  small 
fractions  of  a  second;  we  should  have  to  perform 
impossibilities.  .  .  .  But,  secondly,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  no  planet  does  move  in  a  perfect  ellipse  or 
manifest  the  truth  of  Kepler's  laws  exactly.  .  .  . 
The  mutual  perturbations  of  the  planets  distort  the 

1  Chapter  xxi. 


172    PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

elliptical  paths.  Those  laws,  again,  hold  true  only 
of  infinitely  small  planetary  bodies,  and,  when  two 
great  globes  like  the  sun  and  Jupiter  attract  each 
other,  the  law  must  be  modified.  .  .  .  Even  at  the 
present  day  discrepancies  exist  between  the  observed 
dimensions  of  the  planets'  orbits  and  their  theoretical 
magnitudes,  after  making  allowance  for  all  disturbing 
causes.1  Nothing,  in  fact,  is  more  certain  in  scientific 
method  than  that  approximate  coincidence  can  alone 
be  expected.  In  the  measurement  of  continuous 
quantity,  perfect  correspondence  must  be  purely  ac- 
cidental, and  should  give  rise  to  suspicion  rather  than 
to  satisfaction."  2 

It  is  from  measurement  that  the  great  certainty 
of  science,  where  it  is  certain,  comes.  "  Obviously," 
says  Herbert  Spencer,8  "  it  is  this  reduction  of  the 
sensible  phenomena  it  represents  to  relations  of 
magnitude  which  gives  to  any  division  of  knowledge 
its  especially  scientific  character."  .  As  Davy  said, 
"  Nothing  tends  so  much  to  the  advancement  of 
knowledge  as  the  application  of  a  new  instrument." 
But  it  is  only  the  simpler  things  that  are  open  to 
even  approximate  measurement.  After  two  centu- 
ries of  labor  the  most  eminent  mathematical  talent 
has  succeeded  in  calculating  the  mutual  effect  of 
three  bodies  upon  each  other  under  the  single  force 
of  gravity  only  approximatimly .    Astronomers  have 

1  See  Lockyer's  "  Lessons  in  Elementary  Astronomy." 

2  "  Principles  of  Science,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  73. 
8  "Recent  Discussions,"  p.  162. 


SCIENTIFIC  RESULTS.  173 

not  even  attempted  the  general  problem  of  the  simul- 
taneous attractions  of  four,  five,  six,  or  more  bodies, 
resolving  the  general  problem  into  so  many  different 
problems  of  three  bodies.  But  an  atom  of  a  single 
substance,  says  Jevons,1  "  is  probably  a  vastly  more 
complicated  system  than  that  of  the  planets  and 
their  satellites.  A  compound  atom  perhaps  may  be 
compared  with  a  stellar  system,  each  star  a  minor 
system  in  itself.  The  smallest  particle  of  solid 
substance  will  consist  of  a  vast  number  of  such  stel- 
lar systems,  united  in  regular  order,  each  bounded 
by  the  other,  communicating  with  it  in  some  man 
ner,  yet  wholly  incomprehensible.  .  .  .  There  is 
every  reason  to  believe  that  each  constituent  of  a 
chemical  atom  must  go  through  an  orbit  in  the  mill- 
ionth part  of  the  twinkling  of  an  eye,  in  which  it 
successively  or  simultaneously  is  under  the  influence 
of  many  other  constituents,  or  possibly  conies  into 
collision  with  them.  It  is,  I  apprehend,  no  exag- 
geration to  say  that  mathematicians  have  scarcely  a 
notion  of  the  way  in  which  they  could  successfully 
attack  so  difficult  a  problem  of  forces  and  motions. 
Each  of  these  particles  is  forever  solving  differential 
equations,  which,  if  written  out  in  full,  might  per- 
haps belt  the  earth,  as  Sir  John  Herschel  has  beau- 
tifullv  remarked." 

In  the  simplest  natural  phenomena,  therefore, 
there  will  always  be  numberless  factors  whose  exact 
influence   can  never  be   ascertained.      "Until   we 

1  "Principles  of  Science,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  453. 


174  PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

know  thoroughly  the  nature  of  matter,  and  the 
forces  which  produce  its  motions,"  say  Thomson  and 
Tait,1  "  it  will  be  utterly  impossible  to  submit  to 
mathematical  reasoning  the  exact  conditions  of  any 
physical  question."  The  approximate  solutions 
which  are  reached  "  are  attained  by  a  species  of  ab- 
straction or  rather  limitation  of  the  data,  and  thus 
the  infinite  series  of  forces  really  acting  may  be  left 
out  of  consideration."  In  science,  then,  the  problems 
solved  do  not  reproduce  the  actual  order  in  its  real 
complexity,  and  the  laws  and  explanations  are  more 
or  less  hypothetical,  and  apply  to  nothing  which  we 
see  or  feel.  Even  physical  astronomy,  where  the 
nearest  approximation  to  actual  conditions  is  found, 
is  full  of  assumptions  and  neglect  of  numberless  dis- 
crepancies. It  is  assumed  in  it  that  the  other  mill- 
ions of  existing  systems  exert  no  perturbing  influ- 
ence on  our  system  ;  that  the  planets  are  perfect 
ellipsoids  with  absolutely  smooth  surfaces  and  homo- 
geneous interiors — assumptions,  part  of  them,  cer- 
tainly untrue,  as  every  hill  and  mountain  show,  and 
the  rest  very  doubtful.  In  regard  to  other  branches 
of  science  the  same  thing  is  true.  Scientific  in- 
vestigators speak  and  calculate  about  homogeneous 
substances,  perfect  fluids  and  gases,  inflexible  bars, 
points  at  which  the  gravity  of  bodies  is  concentrated, 
uniform  spheres,  etc. ;  but  in  reality  there  are  no 
such  things  in  Nature.  Take  one  of  the  simplest 
problems  in  mechanics,  the  use  of  a  crowbar  to  raise 

1  "  Natural  Philosophy,"  vol.  i.,  p.  337. 


SCIENTIFIC  RESULTS.  175 

a  heavy  stone,  and  we  shall  find,  as  Thomson  and 
Tait  have  pointed  out,  that  we  neglect  far  more 
than  we  observe.1  If  we  suppose  the  bar  to  be  quite 
rigid,  the  fulcrum  and  stone  perfectly  hard,  and  the 
points  of  contact  real  points,  we  might  give  the  true 
relation  of  the  forces.  But,  in  reality,  the  bar  will 
bend,  the  stone  may  yield  a  trifle,  and  the  points  of 
contact  are  not  absolute  points,  and  the  extension 
and  compression  of  the  different  parts  involve  us  in 
difficulties  which  no  mathematics  can  cope  with.  In 
a  practical  point  of  view,  these  effects  are  generally 
inappreciable;  but,  compared  with  absolute  exacti- 
tude, there  will  always  remain  gaps  not  to  be  closed 
up. 

Especially  when  we  would  know  any  of  the 
higher  orders  of  existence,  there  must  be  uncertainty 
in  our  knowledge.  The  inorganic  is  somewhat  sub- 
jectible  to  measure,  but,  when  we  enter  the  realm  of 
the  vital  or  the  mental,  we  come  to  that  which  can 
no  longer  be  put  into  feet  and  inches,  pounds  and 
ounces.  "We  cannot,"  as  Dr.  W.  O.  Johnson  re- 
cently warned  his  medical  brethren,  "  describe  the 
commonest  chemical  change  going  on  in  the  body. 
"We  cannot  define  the  simplest  of  the  vital  pro- 
cesses." In  the  words  of  the  chemist  Berthollet? 
"  AYe  know  nothing  of  any  one  of  them  thoroughly, 
since  a  perfect  knowledge  of  any  one  of  them  in- 
volves a  perfect  knowledge  of  all  the  laws  and  forces 
which  continue  to  produce  it."     What  shall  we  say, 

1  "  Treatise  on  Natural  Philosophy,"  vol.  i.,  p.  337,  etc. 


176    PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

then,  of  the  higher  problems  of  the  intellectual  and 
spiritual  order?  Here,  Science  finds  herself  in  a 
realm  of  mystery.  What  measuring-rod  can  science 
put  to  the  sense  of  beauty  ?  By  what  weight-stand- 
ard can  it  estimate  the  quantitative  energy  of  a 
thought  ?  By  what  calculus  can  right  and  wrong  be 
reduced  to  foot-pounds  ?  By  what  moral  astronomy 
shall  the  track  of  free-will  be  predicted,  and  the 
infinite  complications  and  ever-changing  equilibra 
tions  of  society  be  foretold  ? 

"In  human  affairs,  then,"  as  Jevons  well  says,1 
"  the  real  application  of  scientific  method  is  out  of 
the  question." 

Or  take  the  measures  with  which  science  reaches 
its  greatest  precision — a  precision  oftentimes  really 
marvelous.  In  comparison  with  these  standards, 
the  variability  of  conscience  is  pointed  out,  and  the 
shif tings  of  moral  judgment  in  different  ages  and 
peoples  are  declared  to  disprove  the  existence  of  any 
authoritative  moral  faculty,  or  at  least  to  disprove 
the  existence  of  any  fixed  standard  of  right  and 
wrong.  But  is  science  really  any  better  off  in  these 
respects?  Has  it  any  absolute  standard  measure, 
either  of  direction,  time,  weight,  or  extension,  any 
more  than  religion  of  morality  or  faith  ?  Xot  a  bit. 
All  the  instruments  with  which  scientific  men  per 
form  their  measurements  are  more  or  less  faulty. 
A  surface  of  mercury  is  supposed  to  be  perfectly 
plane,  but  even  in  the  breadth  of  five  inches  there  is 

1  Vol.  ii.,  p.  460. 


SCIENTIFIC  RE8UZ1  177 

a  calculable  divergence  from  a  true  plane  of  about 
a  ten-millionth  part  of  an  inch.  A  yjluinb-line  is 
ssnmed  to  be  perfectly  vertical,  but.  owing  to  the 
attractions  of  mountains  and  other  inequa- l\  -  on 
the  earth's  surface,  this  is  never  absolutelv  true,  and 
in  extensive  surveys  has  to  be  approximatively  cor- 
rected. In  measuring  time,  the  pendulum,  admi- 
rable as  it  is.  is  not  absolutelv  invariab"  T:.e 
slightest  change  in  the  form  or  weight  of  the  pen- 
dulum, such  as  changes  :  temperature,  the  slight— ~ 
eon    -  -  any  par*,     i  the  most  minute  displa 

ment    of    the   point      :    suspens   >n,   readily   can  s  e . 
w    ild  falsify  th^  result. 

The  best  unit  of  time  is  the  tation  of  a  freelv- 
moving  body.  But  when  we  inquire  where  the 
freelv-movii;_        dy  is.    "no    Batisf     I  mswer." 

-  ys  Jevons.  "can  be  driven."     Practicallv.  the  i  - 
t  'ing   globe  is   sufficiently  accurate.     :    .  long 

time  has  n    ssecl    -  ~:ronomers  thought  it   im- 

possible  to  detect  any  inequality  in  its  movement : 
but  it  is  now  known  that  the  friction  oi  ti  lal 
waves  and  the  ra«iiation  of  heat  in*  -  ace  h  - 
slightly  de  sed  the  rapidity  of  the  earth's  moti 
The  moon's  motion  round  the  earth  and  the  ~ii*s 
motion  round  the  sun  form  the  next  1  est  measure 
of  time.  But  the--  also  are  subject  to  disturtV 
ances  from  other  planets  or  heavenly  bodies,  and 
from  the  loss  of  ener^r  through  slight  resistances 
met  in  their  pass  _e  through  sp:-. ;-e.  "TTe  thus." 
says   Jevons,   "'appear  to   be    devoid   of   any  hope 


178    PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

of  establishing  a  sure  standard  of  the  efflux  of 
time." 

Turning  to  space  measurements,  we  find  it 
equally  difficult  to  obtain  any  invariable  standard. 

To  construct  or  preserve  an  unchangeable  stand- 
ard bar  is  something  which  is  not  possible,  or  at 
least  cannot  be  shown  to  be  possible.  Passing  over 
the  practical  difficulty  of  defining  the  ends  of  the 
standard  length  with  sufficient  accuracy,  we  have  no 
means  of  proving  that  the  substance  of  the  bar  does 
not  contract  or  expand  with  age  or  temperature.  It 
is  certain  that  many  rigid  and  invariable  substances 
do  change  in  dimensions  both  from  age  and  tempera- 
ture. If  we  take,  as  our  unit,  a  certain  fraction  of 
the  earth's  circumference,  this  likewise  is  exposed 
to  uncertainty  from  possible  changes  in  the  earth's 
magnitude  and  the  difficulty  of  measuring  the  earth 
with  sufficient  accuracy.  Or,  lastly,  if  we  take  as  a 
standard  the  length  of  a  seconds  pendulum,  we 
must  assume  that  the  attraction  of  gravity  at  a 
given  point,  and  the  length  of  a  sidereal  day,  remain 
entirely  unchanged,  neither  assumption,  as  far  as  we 
can  judge,  being  absolutely  correct. 

Similar  difficulties  beset  attempts  to  obtain  un- 
changeable weights  or  standards  of  density,  mass, 
motion,  or  heat.  Besides  the  disturbing  conditions 
known,  but  impossible  sufficiently  to  guard  against, 
vitiating  all  these  standards,  there  are  also  conditions 
which  it  is  always  possible  may  exist  unsuspected. 

The  fact  is,  that  the  realm  of  experience,  in- 


SCIENTIFIC  RESULTS.  179 

Btead  of  being  the  favored  seat  of  exact  truth,  can 
never  give  us  any  absolute  certainty.  In  the  words 
of  Judge  Stallo,  at  the  conclusion  of  his  remark- 
able articles  on  the  "  Primary  Concepts  of  Sci- 
ence," *  "  there  is  no  absolute  system  of  coordinates 
in  space  to  which  the  positions  of  bodies  and  their 
changes  can  be  referred ;  and  there  is  neither  an 
absolute  measure  of  quantity,  nor  an  absolute  stand- 
ard of  quality.  There  is  no  physical  constant" 
No  absolute  physical  standard  is  even  conceivable. 
The  only  absolute  certainty  is  in  the  realm  of  ideas 
— of  intuitions.  As  far  as  both  science  and  religion 
are  founded  on  them,  they  possess  absolute  cer- 
tainty. As  far  as  they  are  experimental,  they  par- 
take more  or  less  of  the  same  relative  validity  and 
absolute  uncertainty. 

Whenever  knowledge  is  destitute  of  absolute 
certainty,  its  history  will  represent  a  series  of 
changes,  whereby  the  absolute  truth  is  more  and 
more  approximated.  This  is  notably  the  case  with 
religion.  The  rude  phases  which  first  it  took  on, 
the  changes  and  transformations  through  which  it 
has  passed,  have  been  common  targets  for  com- 
ments by  no  means  complimentary.  But  it  is  the 
same  with  science.  Nothing  is  more  contrary  to 
the  whole  spirit  of  modern  science,  more  absurd, 
indeed,  to  a  modern  intellect,  than  some  of  the  sci- 
entific theories  of  Bacon.  Kepler  was  full  of  chi- 
merical notions,  and  we  know  from  his  own  writ- 

1  Popular  Science  Monthly,  December,  1873. 


130    PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

ings  the  numerous  errors  into  which,  he  fell.  Ac- 
cording to  one  of  his  earlier  scientific  works,  the 
sun,  stars,  and  planets,,  were  typical  of  the  Trinity, 
and  God  distributed  the  planets  in  space  in  accord- 
ance with  the  regular  polyhedrons,  etc.  He  grave- 
ly held  that  there  could  not  be  more  than  six  plan- 
ets because  there  were  not  more  than  five  regular 
solids.  His  famous  laws  were  the  one  true  discov- 
ery among  a  score  of  vain  and  groundless  specula- 
tions, and,  even  in  the  investigations  that  led  him  to 
these,  he  proceeded  upon  the  false  supposition  that 
the  sun's  motion  was  requisite  to  keep  up  the  mo- 
tion of  the  planets,  as  well  as  to  deflect  and  modify 
it.  Even  the  acute  genius  of  Huyghens  did  not 
prevent  him  from  inferring  that  but  one  satellite 
could  belong  to  Saturn,  because,  with  those  of  Jupi- 
ter and  the  earth,  it  made  up  the  perfect  number  of 
six.  Before  the  time  of  Torricelli,  physicists  be- 
lieved that  Nature  abhorred  a  vacuum,  and  this  was 
the  reason  why  water  rose  in  a  pump  ;  but  when 
Torricelli  pointed  out  the  fact  that  water  would  not 
rise  more  than  thirty-three  feet  in  a  pump,  nor  mer- 
cury more  than  thirty  inches,  and  thus  above  these 
points  Nature  had  no  objections  to  any  vacuum,  an- 
other cause  had  to  be  sought. 

Yan  Helmont,  who  is  immortalized  by  the  study 
of  the  gases,  believed  that  each  part  of  the  body 
had  an  archaeus  or  special  spiritual  agent,  subordi- 
nate to  the  principal  archseus,  which  he  located  in 
the  stomach,  the  seat  also  assigned  by  him  to  the 


SCIENTIFIC  RESULTS.  \§\ 

intellect.  The  distinguished  Vesalius,  who,  by  his 
careful  dissections,  overthrew  the  hitherto  unchal- 
lenged system  of  Galen,  and  first  put  anatomy  upon 
a  scientific  foundation,  did  not  dream  of  disputing 
that  authority  concerning  the  distribution  of  the 
blood,  and  therefore  imagined  that  it  distilled 
through  the  pores  of  the  unbroken"  and  imperme- 
able portion,  and  steadily  denied  the  existence  of 
valves  in  the  veins,  although  others  had  already  ob- 
served them. 

In  modern  times  similar  mistakes  have  been  re- 
peatedly made.  The  history  of  chemistry  shows 
how  substances  have  been  confounded  with  one  an- 
other. "  Thus  strontia,"  says  Jevons,1  "  was  never 
discriminated  from  baryta  till  Klaproth  and  Haiiy 
detected  differences  between  some  of  their  proper- 
ties. There  is  now  no  doubt  that  the  recently-dis- 
covered substances,  caesium  and  rubidium,  were 
long  mistaken  for  potassium.  The  history  of  sci- 
ence is  the  history  of  the  constant  correction  of  ear- 
lier experimenters  by  later,  causes  of  error  which 
afterward  are  most  apparent  being  at  first  over- 
looked. The  Arabian  astronomers  determined  the 
meridian  by  taking  the  middle  point  between  the 
places  of  the  sun  when  at  equal  altitudes  on  the 
same  day.  They  neglected  the  fact  that  the  sun 
has  its  own  motion  among  the  stars  in  the  interven- 
ing time.  Newton  thought  that  the  mutual  disturb- 
ances of  most  of  the  planets  might  be  disregarded. 

1  "  Principles,"  vol  i.,  p.  273. 


182    PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

The  expansion  of  quicksilver  was  long  used  as  the 
measure  of  temperature,  in  ignorance  of  the  fact 
that  the  rate  of  expansion  increases  with  the  tem- 
perature. Rumford,  in  his  first  experiment  leading 
to  a  determination  of  the  mechanical  equivalent  of 
heat,  disregarded  the  heat  absorbed  by  the  box  con- 
taining the  water  heated.1  Lavoisier's  ideas  con- 
cerning the  constitution  of  acids  have  received  a 
complete  refutation.  He  named  oxygen  the  acid- 
generator  because  he  believed  that  all  acids  were 
compounds  of  oxygen,  a  generalization  which  fur- 
ther investigations  disproved.  Berzelius's  theory 
of  the  dual  formation  of  chemical  compounds  has 
met  a  similar  fate.  On  its  ruins  has  risen  the  ISTew 
Chemistry.  The  simple  splitting  and  pairing  the- 
ory has  been  abandoned,  and  we  are  becoming  fa- 
miliar with  the  idea  of  unitary  structure,  molecular 
types,  and  transformations  by  substitutions  and  re- 
placements, in  which  the  arrangement  of  the  ele- 
ments is  of  as  much  consequence  as  the  question 
which  they  are. 

This  succession  of  various  theories  is  a  phenom- 
enon that  cannot  fail  to  strike  him  who  studies 
the  progress  of  scientific  ideas  as  something  com- 
mon to  all  branches  of  physical  investigation.  In 
the  early  days  of  geology  fossils  were  looked  upon 
as  the  results  of  the  fermentation  of  matter,  or 
of  terrestrial  exhalations,  or  were  supposed  to  be 
mere  earthy  concretions  or  sports  of  matter.    When, 

1  Jevons,  "  Principles  of  Science,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  86. 


SCIENTIFIC  RESULTS.  183 

after  two  centuries  of  discussion,  the  belief  that 
they  were  the  remains  of  fossils  gained  sway,  it 
was  still  held  that  the  I^oachian  Deluge  was  the 
cause  of  all  the  past  changes  on  the  earth's  surface. 
Discovery  after  discovery  worked  the  refutation 
of  this  idea.  Still  all  geologic  changes  were  looked 
upon  as  sudden,  of  the  nature  of  catastrophes :  one 
school,  the  Plutonists,  regarding  lire  as  the  great 
agent  of  all  rock-formations ;  the  other  school,  the 
Keptunists,  holding  that  even  the  so-called  igneous 
rocks  were  chemical  precipitates  from  the  waters. 
In  the  present  century  these  theories  have  given 
way  to  the  Uniformitarian  theory,  which  refers 
the  greatest  geological  changes  to  the  agency  of 
forces  still  in  action,  and  this  is  now  giving  way 
to  the  Evolution  theory.  Recent  discoveries,  such 
as  the  finding  of  worked  flints  lying  in  strata,  and 
in  connection  with  extinct  mammalia,  hitherto  sup- 
posed to  be  anterior  to  man ;  the  discovery  of  the 
Eozoon  in  the  Laurentian  rocks  of  Canada ;  and 
especially  the  revelations  made  by  the  dredging  ex- 
peditions, of  the  present  contemporaneous  formation 
of  the  chalk  and  lime  deposits  hitherto  supposed  to 
indicate  different  geologic  epochs — have  worked  al- 
most a  revolution  in  geology.  The  strata  of  the 
earth's  crust  are  hardly  more  various  and  irregular 
than  the  diverse  theories  in  regard  to  their  origin 
and  history  that  from  generation  to  generation  have 
prevailed  So  in  the  history  of  biology.  Passing 
by  the  mystical  school,  with  its  doctrines  of   sig- 


134  PHYSICAL  AXD  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

natures  and  astrological  fancies,  as  undeserving  the 
name  of  even  primitive  science,  we  have  the  Iatro- 
chemical  school  of  the  seventeenth  century,  in  which 
the  reactions  of  the  acid  and  alkali,  and  various 
other  chemical  principles  and  processes,  explained 
every  thing ;  then,  in  the  first  half  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century,  the  mechanical  school  of  Borelli, 
and  the  corpuscular  hypothesis  of  Descartes,  fol- 
lowed by  the  Yital  Fluid  theory,  in  which  all  the 
peculiar  functions  of  life  are  supposed  to  depend 
upon  a  subtile  ethereal  substance  diffused  through 
the  organism,  this  again  yielding  to  the  two  rival  the- 
ories of  modern  physiology,  the  Psychical  and  the 
Physical  theories ;  one  maintaining  an  immaterial 
vital  principle,  the  other  that  the  processes  of  life 
are  but  transformations  of  the  various  physical 
forces.1 

Electricity  similarly  was  first  spoken  of  as  a 
fluid,  then  as  a  force,  now  as  an  energy  or  motion 
readily  converted  into  thermal,  molar,  or  molecular 
motion  of  various  kinds.  To  explain  heat  we  have 
had  the  phlogistic,  the  caloric,  and  now  the  molecu- 
lar motion  theory.  For  light,  we  have  had  the 
Emission  and  the  Undulatorv  theories :  for  the 
heavens,  the  Ptolemaic  and  the  Copernican  sys- 
tems ;  in  regard  to  forces,  the  Cartesian  and  the 
Xewtonian  conceptions.  In  the  presence  of  the 
new  dynamics,  the  new  botany,  the  new  chemistry 
of  to-day,  in  the  presence  especially  of  those  theo- 

1  Whewell's  "  History  of  Scientific  Ideas,"  book  ix  ,  chap.  ii. 


SCIEXTIFIC  RESULTS.  185 

ries  most  revolutionary  to  all  scientific  ideas — the 
natural  selection  and  the  evolution  hypotheses — the 
natural  philosopher  of  fifty  years  ago  would  feel 
that  there  was  nothing  for  him  to  do  but  to  learn 
his  science  over  again,  and  learn  it  all  differently. 
Great  as  have  been  the  theologic  changes  in  the  last 
century,  they  are  more  than  matched  by  the  shift- 
ings  of  scientific  theory.  If  in  former  times  the 
best  men  of  science  have  made  as  many  errors  as  it 
is  now  proved  that  they  have,  is  it  likely  that  the 
dicta  of  the  present  school  of  scientists  are  to  re- 
main forever  unshaken  (  If  the  past  errors,  if  the 
present  possibility  of  error  in  some  things,  do  not 
interfere,  nevertheless,  with  the  substantial  trust- 
worthiness and  validity  of  present  science,  why 
should  they  with  the  trustworthiness  and  validity 
of  religion  % 


186   PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

POSITIVE    SCIENTIFIC   PEOOFS    OF    RELIGION. 

In  the  previous  chapters  I  endeavored  to  show 
that,  if  the  foundations  of  religion  are  insecure, 
those  of  science,  also,  for  the  same  reasons  and  in 
the  same  way,  are  uncertain.  Not  only  can  this 
negative  exposition  be  made,  but  positively  it  can 
be  shown  that  religion  has  valid  evidences  similar  to 
those  of  science.  Physical  investigation  can  claim 
no  monopoly  of  scientific  method  ;  for,  as  Herbert 
Spencer  says,  it  is  nothing  different  from  ordinary 
reasoning,  but  simply  the  processes  of  common- 
sense  carried  out  with  precision.  Let  us  consider, 
then, the 

SCIENTIFIC    FOUNDATION    OF    RELIGION. 

The  starting-point  of  all  science  is  in  the  obser- 
vation of  Nature.  The  various  senses,  sight,  hear- 
ing, smell,  touch,  perceive  various  objects — star, 
rock,  water,  plant,  animal ;  and  notice  their  varied 
qualities,  heat  and  cold,  hardness,  softness,  per- 
fumes, sounds,  forms,  etc.      These  are   compared ; 


POSITIVE  SCIENTIFIC  PROOFS,   ETC.  187 

their  likenesses  and  differences  noted.  Then  clas- 
sifications are  formed — families,  species,  substances, 
forces,  laws — and,  as  the  result  of  these  inductions, 
general  propositions  are  laid  down,  the  general  prin- 
ciple ruling  in  this  inductive  process  being  to  classify 
together  the  like  things,  separating  them  from  the 
unlike,  and  to  interpret  the  unknown  by  the  known, 
not  vice  versa. 

Now,  the  course  of  religious  thought  has  been 
the  same.  It  may  not  have  been  aware  that  it 
started  with  observation,  and  proceeded  by  induc- 
tion, any  more  than  M.  Jourdain  knew  that  he 
talked  prose.  It  may  even  have  claimed  to  reach 
its  knowledge  entirely  through  other  sources.  Nev- 
ertheless, like  science,  its  work  has  been,  for  the 
most  part,  the  interpretation  of  the  facts  of  Nature, 
only  it  has  taken  them  up  with  other  aim,  and  pur- 
sued them  in  another  direction.  Mr.  Huxley  him- 
self, urging  upon  clergymen  the  study  of  science, 
points  this  out.  "  The  theories  of  religion,"  he 
says,  "  like  all  other  theories,  are  professedly  based 
upon  matters  of  fact."  l 

If  we  examine  even  the  rudest  forms  of  reli- 
gion, we  shall  find  their  genesis,  as  Mr.  Tylor  says,2 
in  "  the  plain  evidence  of  men's  senses,  as  inter- 
preted by  a  fairly  consistent  and  rational  primitive 
philosophy."  Mr.  Tylor  has  explained,  at  length, 
the  various  processes  and  reasonings  which  suggest 

1 "  Lay  Sermons,"  p.  60. 

9 "  Primitive  Culture,"  p.  387. 


188  PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

to  the  savage  the  doctrine  of  spiritual  beings.  To 
sum  them  up,  they  are  as  follows  :  Thinking  men, 
at  a  low  level  of  culture,  observing  the  strange  phe- 
nomena of  sleep,  trance,  dreams,  disease,  death,  are 
deeply  impressed  by  them,  and  seek  to  account  for 
them.  A\  nat  makes  the  difference  between  a  live 
and  a  dead  bodv — a  conscious  and  an  unconscious 
man  ?  \\  nat  are  these  human  >hapes  which  appear 
in  visions  ?  Looking  at  these  marvelous  facts,  the 
ancient  savage  philosophers  made  the  induction  of 
what  we  may  call  an  apparitional  soul,  or  ghost-soul 
— an  unsubstantial  human  image  or  shadow — the 
cause  of  life  and  thought,  independently  possessing 
the  personal  consciousness  and  volition  of  its  corpo- 
real owner,  past  or  present,  and  able  to  leave  the 
body  and  flash  swiftly  from  place  to  place. 

This  conception  of  spiritual  beings  as  the  causes 
of  life  and  motion  once  attained  to,  two  great  pos- 
tulates of  religion  were  natural  inferences  from  it. 
As  the  soul  or  spiritual  being  was  able  to  leave  the 
body  during  life,  and  appeared  in  dreams  after 
death,  it  was  not  involved  in  the  destruction  of  the 
body  at  death,  but  continued  to  live  on. 

This  was  enough  to  establish  for  them  the  doc- 
trine of  the  immortality  of  the  soul.  Then,  as  they 
looked  upon  the  mighty  marvels  of  earth  and  sky, 
so  full  of  awe  to  primitive  man,  the  grand  concep- 
tion of  Divine  Beings  was  reached. 

The  blazing  sun  which  warmed  and  lighted 
man  ;  the  cloud  which  swallowed  up  the  sun  in  the 


POSITIVE  SCIENTIFIC  PROOFS,   ETC.         ISO 

midst  of  its  career,  and  shot  its  lightning-bolts  upon 
the  earth  ;  the  sea  which  now  smiled  so  sweetly,  and 
now  raved  along  the  shore  with  tossing  mane ;  the 
bubbling  fount,  the  fruitful  earth,  the  wind,  the 
mountain — here  were  powers  which  did  not  origi- 
nate with  man  himself,  over  which  he  could  exer- 
cise no  control  nor  foresight,  which  were  mightier 
far  than  he.  What  is  their  nature  ?  Naturally  he 
applied  to  the  explanation  of  the  unknown  outward 
Nature  the  conception  by  which  he  had  already  ex- 
plained his  own  life  and  movements.  As  he  him- 
self existed  and  executed  his  purposes  and  acted 
upon  the  world  through  the  spiritual  being  or  soul 
within  him,  so  he  believed  that  each  celestial  or 
earthly  body  was  itself  or  had  as  its  mover  an  inde- 
pendent living  spiritual  being.  Accordingly,  he 
offered  to  these  spiritual  beings  worship,  prayer, 
gifts,  sacrifices,  rites,  and  ceremonies  of  various 
kinds,  such  as  he  deemed  would  win  their  favor, 
mollify  their  wrath,  or  persuade  them  to  effect  his 
wishes. 

In  the  widening  experience  of  man,  the  rude 
observations  of  early  times  have  been  made  infinite- 
ly more  full  and  exact.  Further  observation  reveals 
many  errors  in  the  primitive  animistic  theories  of 
human  phenomena.  Further  observation  shows  Na- 
ture not  to  be  ruled  by  numerous  independent  voli- 
tions, but  to  be  under  the  government  of  a  single 
uniform  system  of  laws.  The  first  crude  theories 
of  religious   interpreters   must,   therefore,  be   laid 


190   PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

aside.  Theology  lias  undergone  many  transforma- 
tions between  those  early  fancies  and  its  modern 
forms.  Nevertheless,  its  starting-point  and  its  meth- 
od to-day  are  the  same,  only  carried  out  with  more 
scientific  rigor.  Religion,  with  the  help  of  science, 
whose  aid  is  here  invaluable,  surveys  the  vast  phe- 
nomena of  the  universe.  It  finds  Nature  not  the 
same  from  all  eternity,  but  ever  changing.  It  finds 
these  constant  changes,  however,  directed  by  law. 
Every  effect  has  some  regular  cause.  Force  is  linked 
with  force.  Principle  dovetails  into  principle. 
Creature  is  grouped  with  creature,  forming  an  hier- 
archy of  species,  genus,  order,  and  class.  Thus  the 
Ivosmos  discloses  itself  as  a  wonderful  order.  A 
luxuriant  and  exquisite  loveliness  beams  thence 
upon  the  eye.  Whether  the  devout  or  the  unde- 
vout  survey  Nature,  the  beauty  which  graces  it, 
ranging  in  scale  all  the  way  from  the  majestic  glory 
of  Alpine  scenery  to  the  symmetry  of  a  snow-flake's 
facets,  or  the  microscopic  chasings  of  a  diatom,  can- 
not be  unadmired.  Again,  in  the  admirable  corre- 
lation of  structure  to  environment,  and  of  organ  to 
function,  in  the  mutual  interdependence  of  animal 
and  vegetable  life,  in  the  continuous  self -adjustments 
of  part  to  part  and  change  to  change,  in  the  ingen- 
ious contrivances  which  minister  to  the  prospective 
harmonv  of  Nature,  a  marvelous  exhibition  of  the 
adaptation  of  means  to  ends  greets  the  glance  of 
the  observer.  In  every  creature,  tokens  of  provi- 
dential impulses,  stirring  to  activity,  are  revealed. 


POSITIVE  SCIENTIFIC  PROOFS,  ETC.         191 

From  the  structureless  germinal  matter  at  the  end 
of  a  placental  tuft  which  spontaneously  burrows 
into  the  surrounding  pabulum  to  supply  its  want, 
or  the  jelly-like  amoeba  which  pushes  out  portions 
of  the  living  substance  and  extemporizes  with  them 
an  organ  to  grasp  its  food,  up  to  the  insects  which, 
impelled  by  the  needs  of  the  coming  generation, 
build  their  rafts  of  eggs  to  hatch  out  after  their 
death,  or  the  human  infant  seeking,  untaught,  the 
mother's  breast,  all  living  things  are  impelled  un- 
consciously to  do  what  is  needed  for  the  maintenance 
and  preservation,  not  only  of  themselves,  but  of  the 
race.  Through  all  changes  and  events  a  continual 
progress  from  the  more  imperfect  toward  the  more 
perfect,  a  finer  finish  in  Nature's  handiwork,  a 
steady  exaltation  of  faculty  and  power,  a  constant 
increase  in  all  that  can  minister  to  the  well-being 
or  the  happiness  of  living  creatures,  discloses  it- 
self. A  work  on  natural  theology  is  a  treasury 
of  the  most  striking  illustrations,  out  of  the  thou- 
sands that  might  be  adduced,  that  witness  to  these 
facts. 

Then  religion  surveys  the  phenomena  of  human 
nature.  It  finds  there  exalted  powers  and  activi- 
ties by  virtue  of  which  the  impressions  on  the 
senses,  common  to  man  with  the  brute,  are  given 
with  him  a  higher  significance.  It  observes  the 
power  of  memory  to  retain  and  call  up  again  the 
past ;  the  power  of  imagination  to  look  forth  into 
the  future,  fly  in  thought  to  other  climes,  or  build  be- 


192   PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

fore  the  mind's  eye  ideal  structures.  It  observes  the 
faculties  of  judging  and  comparing,  and  the  concep- 
tions of  likeness,  number,  time,  and  space,  through 
which  the  facts  of  the  world  are  classified  and  in- 
terpreted. It  discovers  intuitions,  such  as  those  of 
purpose,  causation,  and  uniting  law,  by  which  the 
medley  of  events  is  reduced  to  an  intelligible  whole. 
It  finds  powers  of  abstraction  and  expression,  by 
which  man  builds  up  the  beautiful  edifice  of  lan- 
guage and  the  solid  masonries  of  logic.  Unlike 
the  bird  or  beast,  man  does  not  lie  down  in  dull 
content.  There  is  something  in  him  that  makes 
him  dream  of  ideal  excellence,  fascinates  him  with 
every  intimation  of  the  infinite,  draws  him  after 
the  perfect.  A  divine  disquietude  fills  him  till  he 
can  realize  them.  The  unalterable  serenity  which 
reigns  elsewhere  in  Nature,  in  man  gives  place  to 
the  dramatic  agitations  of  consciousness.  For  the 
rigid  determinism,  the  iron  fatality  of  the  physical 
world,  breaks  off  when  we  come  to  humanity,  and 
another  law  appears — the  law  of  freedom.  Man 
finds  that  he  enjoys  the  peculiar  privilege  of  liberty 
of  thought  and  liberty  of  will,  that  he  has  a  power 
over  Nature  and  over  self,  and  that  he  can  exercise 
it  as  he  chooses.  He  labors,  therefore,  to  make 
these  conform  to  his  wishes  and  conceptions,  and 
minister  to  his  delights.  Knowledge  of  the  world's 
order  is  in  his  hands  only  an  instrument  for  act- 
ing upon  it.  He  becomes,  as  it  were,  a  second 
creator.     He  levels  forests,  he  drains  morasses,  he 


POSITIVE  SCIEXTIFIC  PROOFS,   ETC.         193 

tames  and  introduces  this  animal,  lie  banishes  that, 
he  transforms  the  nature  of  plant  and  fruit.  From 
brute  matter  he  draws  forth  the  skillful  tool  and 
the  industrious,  almost  intelligent,  machine,  and 
multiplies  infinitely  his  force.  On  the  frescoed 
wall  he  fastens  his  glowing  vision  of  beauty.  In 
woven  harmonies  he  utters  his  unspeakable  aspira- 
tions and  infinite  longings.  In  the  forest-like  arch- 
es of  the  cathedral  he  rears  the  enduring  symbol  of 
his  reverence  and  awe  for  the  divine.  He  looks 
upon  the  body  of  every  fellow-man  while  living  as 
animated  by  a  being  peculiarly  sacred  and  vital ; 
and,  wThen  the  body  is  laid  in  the  ground,  it  is  his 
belief  (in  every  race  and  nation,  alike  the  most  ig- 
norant and  the  most  cultivated  upon  the  globe)  that 
the  man  still  lives  on. 

Most  characteristic  of  all,  there  is  in  human  na- 
ture a  moral  order  more  beautiful  than  anv  thins; 
that  art  can  show,  more  imperative  in  its  inexora- 
bleness  than  any  law  of  Nature — the  order  of  duty. 
It  is  the  high  prerogative  of  man  to  perceive  distinc- 
tions of  right  and  wrong,  unseen  by  any  creature 
except  himself,  unseen  by  him  through  any  organ 
of  sense,  revealed  only  to  that  marvelous  inner  eye 
— conscience.  The  right  thus  seen  he  feels  bound 
to  obey,  though  he  has  to  go  through  fire  and  tor- 
ture to  do  it.  The  wrong  must  be  shunned,  though 
the  very  heart-strings  be  torn  asunder  thereby. 
This  moral  law,  as  a  French  writer  has  well  ex- 
pressed it,  "  though  it  accord  not  with  the  selfish 
9 


191    PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

ends  of  interest,  the  order  of  desire,  nor  the  fickle 
trifling  of  his  passing  passions,  nevertheless  appears 
to  him  as  the  ideal  end,  the  very  crown  of  life,  and 
he  summons  Nature  to  work  with  him  for  its  real- 
ization." 

Such  are  the  phenomena  which  theology  observes 
in  Mature,  without  and  within  the  circle  of  hu- 
manity. 

The  next  step  in  the  scientific  method,  as  has 
been  already  noticed,  is  that  of  comparison  and 
classification.  To  group  together  in  the  mind  the 
things  which  are  alike,  and  to  distinguish  them  from 
the  things  unlike  them,  is,  as  Herbert  Spencer  states 
it,  "  not  only  the  beginning  of  civilization,  but  the 
first  step  in  the  genesis  of  science." 

Now,  passing  over  all  those  minor  classifications 
and  those  secondary  causes  which  science  studies  so 
assiduously,  minutely,  and  successfully,  what  ulti- 
mate classifications  may  be  made  and  what  first 
causes  may  be  found  by  which  to  interpret  the  uni- 
verse most  fully  and  completely  %  This  is  just  the 
question  which  theology  has  asked,  and  in  its  way 
answered.  It  has  divided  the  universe  into  two 
great  groups,  each,  within  its  own  limits,  containing 
the  widest  range  of  similar  phenomena,  and  sepa- 
rated from  each  other  by  the  broadest  contrast  of 
nature.  One  group  contains  all  natural  phenomena, 
such  as  weight,  size,  form,  heat,  color,  motion ;  the 
other,  all  mental  or  spiritual  phenomena,  perception, 
reason,  love,  will,  aspiration. 


POSITIVE  SCIENTIFIC  PROOFS,   ETC.         195 

In  the  one  group,  inertia  is  the  law ;  in  the  other, 
spontaneity.  In  the  one,  necessity ;  in  the  other, 
freedom.  In  the  one,  the  phenomena  have  a  defi- 
nite relation  to  space — they  have  always  a  certain 
dimension,  or  local  or  extended  movement;  they 
can  be  weighed  or  measured.  The  phenomena  of 
the  other,  on  the  contrary,  exist  in  relation  not  to 
space,  but  to  time ;  they  have  not  extension,  bnt  du- 
ration ;  they  cannot  be  either  weighed  or  measured. 
The  phenomena  of  the  one  are  discerned  by  the 
senses;  those  of  the  other,  by  no  sense,  but  only  by 
consciousness  itself.  In  the  one  group,  every  thing 
is  divisible,  even  the  smallest  conceivable  quantity 
is  conceivably  still  further  separable ;  in  the  other 
group,  the  subject  affirms  its  indivisibility  and  iden- 
tity. In  the  one  group  every  thing  belongs  to  the 
earthly  and  the  finite.  In  the  other  group  there  is 
a  constant  attraction  and  rise  toward  that  which  lies 
higher. 

These  two  great  groups  of  phenomena  having 
been  thus  clearly  marked  off  from  each  other,  re- 
ligion then  makes  its  inductions.  As  science  infers, 
in  explanation  of  the  different  phenomena  exhibited 
by  liquids  and  gases,  that  there  is  a  different  molecu- 
lar structure  as  the  respective  substratum  or  sub- 
ject of  each ;  and  in  explanation  of  the  diverse 
chemical  properties  of  two  chemical  elements,  such 
as  potassium  and  oxygen,  that  there  is  a  diverse 
atomic  constitution  as  the  subject  of  each ;  and  again 
for  the  luminous  vibrations   still   another   subject, 


196    PHYSICAL  AXD  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

called  ether,  different  from  the  subject  of  pondera- 
ble things — so  religion,  in  explanation  of  the  dif- 
ferences of  material  and  spiritual  phenomena,  infers, 
as  the  subjects  of  each,  distinct  underlying  realities, 
which  it  calls,  in  the  one  case,  "matter,"  in  the 
other,  "spirit."  This  "  spirit,"  it  is  true,  has  never 
been  seen  by  mortal  eye,  probably  never  will  be 
seen  by  mortal  eye,  and  is  therefore  known  only  by 
a  mental  inference.  But  the  same  is  true  of  mole- 
cule, atom,  and  ether.  As  these  invisible  things  are 
inferred  by  science  from  the  visible  phenomena 
which  it  observes  according  to  the  mental  law,  that 
phenomena  or  qualities  must  belong  to  something 
as  a  subject,  and  that  when  the  qualities  are  radi- 
cally different  the  subjects  must  be  supposed  differ- 
ent, so  is  "  spirit "  the  corresponding  induction  of 
religion  from  mental  and  moral  phenomena. 

As  the  imagination  will  not,  in  Tyndall's  x  lan- 
guage, "accept  a  vibrating  multiple  proportion,  a 
numerical  ratio  in  a  state  of  oscillation,"  as  the 
source  of  a  train  of  ether-undulations,  but  "the 
scientific  imagination,  which  is  here  authoritative, 
demands,  as  the  origin  and  cause  of  a  series  of 
ether-waves,  a  particle  of  vibrating  matter,  quite 
as  definite,  though  it  may  be  excessively  minute, 
as  that  which  gives  origin  to  a  musical  sound;'1 
so,  conversely,  the  religious  imagination,  in  the  re- 
ligious realm  equally  authoritative,  will  not  accept 
as  the  source  of  mental  and  moral  states  a  vibrating 

i  "Fragments  of  Science,"  p.  135. 


POSITIVE  SCIENTIFIC  PROOFS,  ETC.         197 

material  particle,  but  demands,  as  the  origin  and 
cause  of  spiritual  phenomena,  a  spiritual  subject, 
quite  as  distinct  from  matter  as  its  phenomena  are 
distinct  from  material  phenomena. 

If  an  independent  spiritual  entity  be  a  correct 
induction  from  spiritual  phenomena,  it  will  readily 
be  seen  to  follow  that  this  spiritual  entity  or  soul, 
not  being  a  compound,  but  an  indivisible  unit,  as  it 
constantly  affirms,  will  not  be  dissolved  by  the  dis- 
solution of  the  body,  but  simply  be  released  from  its 
mortal  coils.  The  same  conclusion  results  also  from 
the  universal  belief  of  mankind  in  a  life  after  death. 
The  philologists  comparing  the  various  languages  of 
the  Indo-European  race — Sanscrit,  Greek,  Eoman, 
Teutonic — find  in  them  all  certain  common  roots. 
Thev  infer  that  these  common  roots  must  have  been 

t/ 

in  use  in  the  primitive  Aryan  race,  before  it  left  its 
ancient  home  in  the  table-lands  of  Asia  and  was  dis- 
persed in  India,  Greece,  Italy,  and  Germany.  From 
these  common  roots  they  tell  us  the  social,  political, 
and  domestic  conditions  of  our  primitive  ancestors. 
Again,  geologists,  observing  the  various  appearances 
and  peculiar  illustrations  of  extreme  antiquity  which 
the  earth  presents,  assume  that  they  are  not  artificial 
or  simulated,  as  bigoted  defenders  of  the  Mosaic 
record  have  sometimes  contended,  but  that  the  testi- 
mony of  primitive  Nature  may  be  relied  upon  as 
truthful.  By  parity  of  reasoning,  religion  infers 
from  the  universality  of  the  belief  in  life  after  death 
that  it  is  at  once  a  primitive  deliverance  of  human 


19 S   PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

nature,  and  as  such  ought  to  be  accepted  as  vera- 
cious. 

The  existence  of  the  soul,  now  and  hereafter — 
this  is  the  first  great  induction  of  religion.  Then 
follows  the  second,  that  of  Deity.  If  we  consider 
the  work  of  the  palaeontologist,  philologist,  geolo- 
gist, or  mechanician,  we  shall  find  them  always 
searching  after  the  causes  of  things.  What  is  the 
origin  of  plants  and  animals?  how  did  languages 
beo-in  ?  how  did  the  earth  come  into  existence  and 
into  its  present  condition  \ — these  are  the  questions 
which  are  perseveringly  studied  by  these  physical 
investigators.  The  principle  upon  which  they  pro- 
ceed in  their  inquiries  is,  that  all  motion  or  change, 
of  whatever  kind,  had  some  ulterior  cause.  "With 
none  of  them  is  the  business  of  scientific  inquiry 
closed  with  the  first  induction  of  a  cause.  Beyond 
the  proximate  cause,  they  say,  there  must  be  a  more 
remote.  Xo  sooner  is  it  found,  for  example,  that 
the  peculiar  scratches  on  rocks  and  upon  banks  of 
characteristically-shaped  stone,  running  across  the 
mouth  of  certain  valleys  in  Scotland,  are  caused  by 
ancient  glaciers,  than  the  inquiry  is  made,  "What  is 
the  cause  of  these  glaciers  ?  "  If  they  are  recognized 
as  products  of  snow  long  and  tightly  pressed  to- 
gether, then  the  snow  must  be  traced  to  its  cause  in 
the  action  of  extreme  cold  upon  the  moisture  of  the 
air ;  and  now  a  cause  must  be  sought  for  this  exces- 
sive cold  which  no  longer  exists  in  the  same  regions. 
If  this  again  be  plausibly  referred  to  a  change  in  the 


POSITIVE  SCIENTIFIC  PROOFS,   ETC.         199 

earth's  orbit,  its  distance  from  the  sun  diminishing 
the  amount  of  heat  received  by  the  earth,  the  in- 
vestigator does  not  cease  his  inquiries,  but  demands 
an  explanation  of  this  change  of  orbit.  And  when 
this  is  found  in  a  secular  change  in  the  direction  of 
the  earth's  axis,  still  traceable,  the  torch  of  inquiry 
is  brought  to  bear  upon  the  very  origin  of  the  plane- 
tary system. 

Thus  the  man  of  science  is  led  farther  and 
farther  back,  each  secondary  cause  of  the  chain  re- 
solving itself  as  soon  as  reached  into  an  effect  of 
something  else.  This  chain  may  run  on  to  more 
and  more  remoteness.  It  may  reach  greater  and 
greater  simplicity  and  power.  Nevertheless,  the 
mind  cannot  find  any  satisfactory  resting-place  at 
any  point  of  it,  nor  can  it  be  satisfied  to  pursue 
indefinitely  this  phenomenal  series.  It  conceives 
necessarily  a  first  cause,  a  commencement,  not  mere- 
ly for  each  part,  but  for  the  whole  of  the  chain — an 
ultimate  cause  dependent  upon  nothing  previous. 
It  is  the  value  of  every  true  step  made  in  philoso- 
phy, Newton  said,  that  it  brings  us  nearer  to  this 
first  cause.  "  The  business  of  natural  philosophy'1 
— these  also  are  the  words  of  the  greatest  of  scien- 
tific authorities — "  is  to  deduce  causes  from  effects 
till  we  come  to  the  very  first  cause,  which  certainly 
is  not  mechanical." 

Now,  it  is  just  this  path  and  end  that  religion 
pursues.  It  is  true  that  of  late  men  of  science  have 
themselves  held  back  from  taking  the  last  step,  to 


200  PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

the  Ultimate  Source,  as  a  thing  beyond  their  proper 
province.  But  they  ought  not  to  object  to  religion's 
doing  it  in  strict  accordance  with  the  method  of  sci- 
ence up  to  the  point  where  the  province  of  the  latter 
was  thought  to  cease.  Some  such  ultimate  source  or 
first  cause  must  be  conceived.  For  the  universe  is 
not  an  eternal  quiescence.  It  is  in  constant  change, 
constant  motion.  And  these  changes  and  motions 
are  part  of  a  series  actually  existing  and  progressing. 
~No  matter  what  intermediate  causes  or  agencies  there 
may  have  been,  the  mind  is  not  satisfied  to  stop  with 
any  of  these,  but  passes  farther  and  farther  back, 
seeking  the  first  cause,  which  must  some  time  have 
first  started  the  series.  Xow,  this  first  cause  cannot 
be  matter  itself ;  for  matter  has  no  spontaneity  of 
action.  The  essential  idea  of  matter — an  idea  which 
is  fundamental  to  all  scientific  dealing  with  it — is 
that  matter  is  inert ;  remains  in  its  present  condi- 
tion forever,  unless  disturbed  bv  some  external 
agency.  If  matter  did  not  observe  this  law,  no 
science  of  it  would  be  possible.  In  whatever  con- 
dition and  position  matter  originally  existed,  in  that 
it  must  always  have  remained.  To  start  the  evolu- 
tion of  the  universe,  some  external  agency,  possessed 
of  spontaneity,  must  be  inferred.  As  the  only  spon- 
taneous agent  we  know  of  is  free-will,  the  will  of 
some  Supreme  Being  must  be  regarded  as  the  great 
First  Cause. 

A  similar  induction  results  from  examining  the 
nature  of  the  proximate  causes  of  change.     A  light- 


POSITIVE  SCIENTIFIC  PROOFS,  ETC.         201 

ning-flash,  for  example,  was  found  by  Franklin, 
in  his  famous  experiment  with  the  kite,  to  be  of 
the  same  nature  as  an  electric  discharge.  The  elec- 
tric discharge  was  attributed  to  the  action  of  elec- 
tric fluid,  but  further  investigation  showed  it  to 
be  a  case  of  molecular  motion.  Heat,  light,  sound, 
have  all  likewise,  in  turn,  been  found  to  be  modes 
of  motion,  capable  of  conversion  one  into  the  other. 
Going  one  step  farther  back,  all  motion  is  found 
to  have  its  source  in  some  force — gravitative,  co- 
hesive, repulsive,  chemical,  or  other  kind.  As 
Herbert  Spencer  says,  "  We  come  down  finally 
to  force  as  the  ultimate."  What,  then,  is  this 
last  universal  cause,  this  wondrous  force  %  We  do 
not  actually  observe  force  in  the  external  world  at 
all.  When  we  observe  a  change  in  the  external 
world,  all  that  is  really  observed  is  the  following  of 
one  event  by  another.  We  believe  that  there  is 
force  working  this  succession,  because  when  the  line 
strikes  us  we  feel  force,  and  especially  because  in 
acts  of  the  will  we  are  conscious  that  we  exert  force. 
"  Undoubtedly,"  says  Mr.  Huxley,1  "  active  force  is 
inconceivable  except  as  a  state  of  consciousness,  .  .  . 
except  as  something  comparable  to  volition."  Sir 
John  Herschel  similarly  says,2  "  In  the  only  case  in 
which  we  are  admitted  to  any  personal  knowledge 
of  the  origin  of  force,  we  find  it  connected,  pos- 

1  Article  entitled  "  Bishop  Berkeley  on  the  Metaphysics  of  Sen- 
sation," Macmillari's  Magazine,  18V1. 

2  "Familiar  Lectures,"  p.  461. 


202    PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

sibly  by  intermediate  links  untraceable  by  our  facul- 
ties, but  yet  indisputably  connected  with  volition, 
and  by  inevitable  consequence  with  motive,  with 
intellect,  and  with  all  those  attributes  of  mind  in 
which — and  not  in  the  possession  of  arms,  legs, 
brains,  and  viscera — personality  consists."  To  these 
names  I  might  add  the  names  of  Carpenter,  Spen- 
cer, Grove,  and  Wallace,  in  science — not  to  speak 
of  eminent  authorities  in  philosophy,  all  of  whom 
derive  our  knowledge  of  force  from  our  volitional 
and  mental  experiences.  As  in  the  only  case  where 
we  know  force  directly  we  find  it  to  be  an  attribute 
of  will  and  intelligence,  an  energy  and  expression 
of  spirit,  we  must  infer  next,  in  accordance  with  the 
steps  already  taken,  in  accordance  with  the  general 
rule  of  science,  to  interpret  the  unknown  by  the 
known,  that  force  everywhere  else  is  but  an  energy 
and  expression  of  spirit — and  of  what  other  spirit 
can  it  be  than  of  the  One  Infinite  and  Almighty 
Personality  whom  we  call  God  ? 

Drawing  another  inductive  line,  religion  reaches 
the  same  conclusion.  From  the  wise  adaptation  of 
means  to  ends  in  vegetable  and  animal  life,  the 
physiologist  and  anatomist  are  accustomed  to  infer 
certain  designs  or  purposes  as  their  explanation,  and 
they  freely  employ  this  idea  of  design  to  assist  them 
in  solving  the  problems  of  their  departments.  Dr. 
Paget,1  speaking  of  the  study  of  physiology,  claims 
as  one  of  its  advantages  that  it  "  is  a  science  of  de- 

1  Youraans's  "  Culture  demanded  by  Modern  Life,"  p.  139. 


POSITIVE  SCIENTIFIC  PROOFS,   ETC.         203 

signs  and  final  causes.  ...  In  the  inorganic  world," 
he  says,  "  we  seem  to  come  nearer  to  the  efficient 
than  to  the  final  cause  of  events.  But  in  the  or- 
ganic world  the  reverse  is  true ;  purpose,  design, 
and  mutual  fitness,  are  manifest  wherever  we  can 
discern  the  structure  or  the  actions  of  a  part ;  utility 
and  mutual  dependence  are  implied  in  all  the  lan- 
guage and  sought  in  all  the  studies  of  physiology. 
The  efficient  causes  and  the  general  laws  of  the  vital 
actions  may  be  hidden  from  the  keenest  search ;  but 
their  final  causes  are  often  nearly  certain." 

In  the  history  of  physiology,  Whewell  has  shown 
that  those  who  studied  the  structure  of  animals  were 
irresistibly  led  to  the  conviction  that  the  parts  of 
this  structure  have  each  its  end  or  purpose ;  that 
each  member  or  organ  not  merely  produces  a  cer- 
tain effect,  or  answers  to  a  certain  use,  but  is  so 
framed  as  to  impress  us  with  the  persuasion  that 
it  was  constructed  for  that  use.  This  persuasion 
directed  the  researches  of  Harvey.  By  the  assidu- 
ous application  of  this  principle,  as  he  himself  con- 
stantly declared,  Cuvier  was  enabled  to  make  the 
discoveries  that  have  rendered  his  name  so  illus- 
trious ;  and  it  has  been  dwelt  upon  as  a  favorite 
contemplation,  and  followed  as  the  most  certain  of 
guides,  by  the  best  anatomists  and  biologists.  More- 
over, from  such  cases  of  curious  adaptation,  science 
has  not  alone  affirmed  design,  but  also  some  De- 
signer. One  of  the  most  astonishing  of  modern  dis- 
coveries is  that  of  the  extreme  antiquity  of  man, 


20tt  PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

antedating,  probably,  the  date  formerly  assigned  by 
tens  of  thousands  of  years.  How  is  it  that  science 
has  been  able  to  establish  this  \  Simply  by  the  dis- 
covery, in  certain  positions,  of  articles  which  it  in- 
ferred were  of  human  workmanship — bits  of  pot- 
tery under  fifty  feet  of  Nile-mud  ;  instruments  of 
bone  or  stone  under  thirty  or  forty  feet  of  peat ; 
flint  axes,  spear-heads,  daggers,  and  knives,  some- 
times rudely  carved  with  the  representation  of  an 
ibex-head,  a  reindeer,  or  a  rhinoceros,  found  in  the 
drift  of  the  Tertiary  period  in  connection  with  the 
bones  of  extinct  animals,  such  as  the  mammoth, 
cave-bear,  or  woolly  rhinoceros.  And  why  was  it 
judged  that  these  articles  were  of  human  origin, 
rather  than  natural  ?  Only  through  the  principle, 
either  expressly  stated  or  clearly  implied,  that  in- 
struments, fashioned  in  accordance  with  a  regular 
plan,  and  adapted  to  an  intelligent  purpose,  could 
not  be  the  result  of  chance,  or  of  unintelligent 
force  or  unconscious  principles  of  order,  but  must 
have  had  intelligent — that  is,  in  this  case,  human — 
makers. 

In  the  same  way — employing  the  same  princi 
pies  of  reasoning — religion  argues,  from  the  evi- 
dences of  fitness  and  contrivance  in  the  world,  in- 
telligent design,  and  from  the  intelligent  design  an 
Intelligent  Designer  of  supreme  power  and  wisdom, 
equal  to  the  supreme  work  manifested  in  the  uni- 
verse of  creation.  The  theological  argument  is  of 
the  same  kind  as  the  reasoning  of  the  archaeologist, 


POSITIVE  SCIENTIFIC  PROOFS,  ETC.         205 

only  vastly  more  cogent  in  proportion  as  the  in- 
stances of  adaptation  from  which  the  theologian 
starts  are  incalculably  more  numerous  and  curious 
than  those  of  the  physical  inquirer.  The  proofs 
of  design  which  the  theist  reasons  from  are  not 
drawn  from  a  few  scratches  on  a  bone,  or  a  hole 
drilled  through  a  piece  of  obsidian,  or  a  few  sharp- 
ened bits  of  flint,  now  and  then  found  in  a  gravel- 
pit  or  a  cave.  They  are  present  wherever  we  turn 
our  eye :  in  the  coincident  mathematics  of  plant 
and  planet ;  in  the  untaught  geometry  of  the  bee- 
hive ;  in  the  admirable  correlation  of  lung  and  air, 
sound  and  hearing,  light  and  sight ;  in  the  mutual 
ministries  of  male  and  female,  life  and  death,  mat- 
ter and  spirit.  From  the  wayside  seed,  laden  with 
future  provision  for  the  folded  germ,  to  the  clus- 
tered systems,  swinging  in  noiseless  motion  and 
perfect  poise  through  the  ethereal  spaces,  all  Na- 
ture testifies  to  the  Arranging  Mind  that  has  mar- 
shaled the  atomic  armies  according  to  well-ordered 
plan. 

It  is  true  that  scientific  men,  of  late,  have  ob- 
jected strongly  to  religion's  employment  of  the 
teleological  argument.  They  charge  that  it  leaves 
the  field  of  experience  to  launch  into  that  of  un- 
verifiable  conjecture.  If  so,  they  but  condemn  their 
own  practice  in  the  field  of  anatomy,  archaeology, 
and  physiology. 

If  no  man  of  science  will  accept  a  poniard  fash- 
ioned from  a  reindeer's  horn,  or  the  rude  repre- 


206    PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

sentation  of  the  reindeer  carved  on  its  handle,  as 
having  come  into  existence  by  some  chance  com- 
bination of  matter,  or  blind  working  of  natural 
force,  without  the  aid  of  designing  mind,  will  he 
maintain,  will  any  one  maintain,  that  such  chance 
combination  of  matter,  or  blind  working  of  natural 
force,  could  bring  into  existence  the  breathing  ?nan 
that  carved  it  and  the  living  reindeer  thus  depicted  ? 
It  is  represented  that,  by  showing  how  certain  effects 
necessarily  follow  from  certain  antecedent  conditions, 
all  ground  for  supposing  a  prospective  purpose  is 
removed.  "  Because  the  fish,"  we  are  told,  "  has  fins 
and  gills,  therefore,  it  uses  them,  and  swims  in  the 
water.  That  is  all.  There  is  no  need  to  suppose 
the  fins  and  gills  were  made  for  that  use."  But 
how  does  the  first  truth  militate  against  the  last  ? 
If  a  purpose  is  wisely  carried  out,  the  means  em- 
ployed will  always  be  such  as  lead  naturally  and 
necessarily  to  the  end  aimed  at.  To  show  that  there 
is  no  design  in  the  case,  it  ought  to  be  shown,  not 
that  the  structure  of  the  fish  naturally  results  in  his 
swimming  in  the  water,  but  that  it  is  opposed  to  it. 
Xor  do  the  theories  of  natural  selection  and  evolu- 
tion, if  we  suppose  them  already  established,  give 
any  such  fatal  blow  to  the  teleological  argument  as 
it  is  urged  that  they  do.  The  inference  of  design 
is  not  to  be  removed  by  showing  that  the  present 
form  or  adaptation  is  not  the  original  one,  but  a 
development  from  some  rude  structure,  a  modifica- 
tion of  some  more  primitive  function,  and  that  the 


POSITIVE  SCIENTIFIC  PROOFS,  ETC.        207 

line  of  proximate  causes  and  evolving  conditions 
can  be  traced  back  to  a  remote  past  and  a  very  dif- 
ferent natural  condition,  even  perhaps  to  some  pri- 
meval nebula  of  glowing  gas.  All  this  but  shifts 
the  point  of  action  and  method  of  work  of  the  de- 
signing intelligence,  but  does  not  diminish  or  abolish 
the  necessity  of  inferring  it.  On  the  contrary,  it 
increases  the  measure  of  Creative  Mind  to  be  sup- 
posed. For  in  that  glowing  gas  were  cradled  all 
the  elements  of  the  earth-to-be.  The  special  adapta- 
tions that  now  have  been  evolved  lay  latent  there, 
and  were  necessarily  unfolded  from  the  general  or- 
der. But  whence  that  general  order — that  orginal 
tuning  of  force  to  law,  and  matter  to  harmonious 
rhythm,  and  that  exquisite  adjustment  of  the  whole 
vast  net-work  of  kosmic  tendencies,  so  that  Nature 
should  build  itself  up  in  beauty,  and  the  strong  ever 
come  forth  from  the  weak,  and  the  better  proceed 
always  from  the  good,  in  an  undeviating  progress, 
till  the  ascent  is  made  from  crystal  and  plant  up  to 
the  reasoning  man  % 

Here  is  a  greater  need  of  intelligence  than  ever. 
Unless  Nature  be  endowed  with  intelligence,  there 
is  no  reason  that  we  know  why  it  might  not  have 
remained  a  perpetual  chaos — a  chronic  anarchy  of 
discordant  elements,  incapable  of  stable  organization. 
Certainly  the  original  arrangement  and  constitution 
of  matter  might  have  had  any  one  of  a  million  vari- 
ous positions  and  properties,  and  each  in  the  process 
of  evolution  would  have  given  a  different  result. 


208   PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

To  choose  out  of  the  infinite  variety  of  possible 
primitive  arrangements,  with  their  corresponding 
various  results,  just  that  one  first  arrangement  and 
particular  rudimental  structure  that  in  gradual,  ne- 
cessary unfolding  would  work  out  just  the  present 
admirable  result,  is  a  thing  requiring  fore-thinking 
wisdom  far  more  than  any  instantaneous  creation. 
"  Natural  evolution,"  says  Prof.  Owen,  "  by  means 
of  slow  physical  and  organic  operations,  through 
Ions;  ages,  is  not  the  less  clearly  recognizable  as  the 
act  of  an  adaptive  mind  because  we  have  abandoned 
the  old  error  of  supposing  it  to  be  the  result  of  a 
primary,  direct,  and  sudden  act  of  creational  con- 
struction.'' 

Even  a  Darwin,  describing  the  wonderful  con- 
trivances existing  in  some  of  the  orchids,  by  which 
their  fertilization  by  insect  go-betweens  is  secured, 
is  compelled  in  spite  of  himself  to  resort  to  the  lan- 
guage of  design  to  express  the  facts ;  and  Moleschott, 
the  chief  of  the  German  materialist  school,  in  an  in- 
troductory address  delivered  at  Turin,  while  fore- 
warning the  investigator  against  guessing  at  final 
causes,  yet  would  not  have  it  believed  that  he  is 
"  rash  enough  or  blind  enough  to  refuse  to  Nature  a 
design  and  an  end.  All  those  whose  ideas  I  share 
by  no  means  deny  the  telos  which  they  guess,  which 
they  even  sometimes  perceive  in  Nature." 

Again,  from  the  spiritual  wants  of  human  nature, 
the  inductive  line  leads  to  the  same  conclusion.  One 
of  the  constant  assumptions  of  scientific  investiga- 


POSITIVE  SCIENTIFIC  PROOFS,  ETC.         209 

tors  is  that  a  constant  harmony  exists  between  the 
structure  and  the  environment  of  any  living  thing. 
"  Wherever  there  is  a  constitutional  want,"  the  sa- 
vant says,  "  there  is  a  corresponding  provision  for 
meeting  it."  If  he  finds  portions  of  the  fossilized 
remains  of  a  hitherto  unknown  animal,  and  by  it 
recognizes  its  digestive  apparatus  as  adapted  to  flesh 
food,  then  he  knows  that  it  must  have  had  claws  and 
jaws  suitable  for  rending  its  prey ;  if  he  finds  its  di- 
gestive organs  ruminant,  then  he  is  assured  that  the 
animal  had  teeth  for  cropping  grass,  and  that  there 
was  grass  or  other  vegetation  for  it  to  crop.  If  he 
finds,  as  was  found  by  the  late  Atlantic  dredging 
expedition,  animals  at  immense  depths  in  the  sea 
possessed  of  good  eyes,  he  makes  the  induction  that 
there  is  also  there  vegetable  food  for  the  animals  to 
live  on  (though  none  was  actually  found),  and  light 
for  the  eyes  to  see  by  (though  ordinary  sunlight,  ac- 
cording to  his  calculations,  could  not  penetrate  thess 
depths).  If  he  is  an  evolutionist,  like  Herbert  Spen- 
cer, whenever,  in  tracing  down  the  line  of  descent 
he  comes  to  a  new  species  or  a  modification  of  an 
old  one,  there,  he  supposes,  some  new  combination 
of  external  conditions  took  place  corresponding  U 
the  inward  change.  Even  for  life  itself  he  can  fina 
no  better  definition  than  "the  continuous  adjust- 
ment of  internal  relations  to  external  relations." 

By  the  same  logical  principle,  religion  draws, 
from  our  felt  need  of  the  Divine  to  realize  our  ideal 
aspirations,  from  our  inability  to  remain  satisfied,  as 


210   PHYSICAL  AXD  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

other  creatures  are,  with  the  fleshly  and  the  earthly, 
the  induction  of  a  Being  corresponding  to  these  de- 
mands of  human  nature.  The  inward  want,  rooted 
in  our  deepest  nature,  of  a  Personal  Object  to  whom 
to  direct  our  love,  our  worship,  and  our  instinctive 
prayers — a  Heavenly  Model  to  serve  as  the  guide 
and  inspiration  of  our  perfecting,  an  ever-present 
Friend  whom  we  may  seek  in  all  sorrow  and  trouble 
— this  inward  want  implies,  somewhere  outside  of 
us,  the  Infinite  Power  and  Absolute  Perfection 
which  alone  maintains  human  nature  in  that  har- 
monious adjustment  with  its  environment  which  is 
found  everv where  else  in  the  world. 

Once  more,  when  the  scientific  explorer,  unearth- 
ing the  antiquities  of  Egypt  or  Assyria,  discovers 
-  me  tablet  inscribed  with  laws,  he  not  only  infers 
that  some  one  carved  the  sentences  upon  the  stone, 
but  also  that  thev  came  from  the  mind  and  heart  of 
some  one — king,  minister,  or  counselor.  And,  if  the 
law  be  wise  and  just,  it>  author  is  believed  to  have 
been  wise  and  just.  If,  by  further  researches,  other 
acts  of  this  king  or  minister  are  discovered,  and  they 
are  uniformly  found  to  be  such  as  would  promote 
the  happiness  of  the  people,  and  would  carry  the  na- 
tion constantly  forward  to  higher  and  higher  stages 
of  physical,  intellectual,  and  moral  improvement, 
the  historian  does  not  hesitate  to  assign  to  him  the 
attribute  of  benevolence. 

Similarly,  religion  proceeds  from  the  observation 
of  the  moral  law  to  the  induction  of  a  moral  Law- 


POSITIVE  SCIEXTIFIC  PROOFS.  211 

giver.  The  profound  sense  of  personal  obligation 
to  do  the  right  and  avoid  the  wrong,  testifies,  the 
theologian  claims,  to  a  Holy  Buler.  Unless  these 
most  imperative  convictions,  these  highest  distinc- 
tions of  human  nature,  are  idle  dreams,  they  must 
be  the  edicts  of  a  righteous  Governor.  And  the 
profuse  beauty,  the  constant  progress  exhibited  in 
this  Ruler's  works,  especially  the  abundant  means 
of  happiness  provided  for  all  creatures,  compel  us  to 
recognize  goodness  and  love  as  among  his  most  dis- 
tinguishing qualities. 

Finally,  religion  takes  the  last  step  of  the  scien- 
tific method  by  applying  to  these  great  inductions 
the  test  of  verification. 

To  the  hesitating  novice  and  the  flaw-picking 
doubter,  Religion's  common  injunction  is,  ';  Just  try 
my  teachings,  and  see  for  yourself  if  they  do  not 
authenticate  themselves"  And.  whenever  the  trial 
is  fairly  made,  the  further  harmony  between  the  in- 
ductions of  religion  and  the  experience  of  human 
life  is  trimnphantly  shown. 

One  of  the  most  conclusive  tests  of  science  is 
that  of  concomitant  variations.  John  Stuart  Mill, 
in  his  system  of  logic,  makes  it  the  fifth  canon  of 
induction.  AVhen  Faraday  showed  that,  by  making 
or  breaking  or  reversing  the  current  of  the  electro- 
magnet,  he  had  complete  control  over  a  ray  of  light, 
this  was  held  to  have  proved  the  relation  of  cause 
and  effect  between  magnetism  and  light.  Let  a 
man,  then,  make  the  experiment  of  dealing  with 


212  PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

himself  and  his  fellows  on  two  opposite  supposi- 
tions. Let  him,  for  a  first  experiment,  regard  and 
treat  men  as  soulless  animals.  How  poor,  how  out 
of  joint,  then,  are  all  the  results  he  meets  with ! 
Why  is  it,  if  this  view  be  true,  that  he  cannot 
reach  his  loftiest  and  most  delicate  development 
on  any  such  theory  1  Why  is  it  that  men  so  fool- 
ishly sacrifice  the  most  useful  to  the  ideal — the 
most  needed  bodily  comforts  and  the  most  brill- 
iant earthly  advantages  to  a  worthless  spiritual 
improvement?  Why  is  it  that  even  life  itself  is 
sacrificed  that  this  chimera  of  a  soul  may  receive  no 
stain  % 

But  if  a  man,  on  the  contrary,  will  live  as  if 
he  had  a  soul  and  as  if  his  fellow-men  likewise  had 
souls,  each  day  will  bring  him  confirmation  of  the 
great  truth.  In  its  light  there  are  made  plain  to  him 
the  puzzles  which  before  were  so  incomprehensible — 
this  mystic  attraction  toward  the  Infinite  and  the 
ideal,  this  discontent  with  our  highest  attainments, 
this  remorse  for  the  smallest  transgressions,  this 
strange  fact  in  the  realm  of  mind  (the  one  exception 
in  the  animated  kingdom),  that  even  the  most  fully 
developed  should  not  begin  to  reach  a  typical  perfec- 
tion. He  comprehends  now  why  it  is  that  all  human 
glory  and  happiness  and  possession  are  so  transitory, 
and  yet  how  the  human  heart  with  immortal  fidel- 
ity and  hope  can  tell  the  grave  that  it  claims  in  vain 
aught  beyond  the  mouldering  robe  of  him  whom  it 
loved. 


POSITIVE  SCIENTIFIC  PROOFS,  ETC.         213 

The  continued  growth  of  thought  and  affection, 
even  until  the  very  last,  though  the  body  long  ago 
passed  its  meridian  and  commenced  its  decline ;  the 
curious  powers  of  the  mind,  seemingly  independent 
of  the  senses,  such  as  are  exhibited  in  somnambu- 
lism, trance,  clairvoyance,  and  similar  phenomena ; 
the  utter  inability  of  the  subtlest  science  to  find  any 
adequate  material  or  physical  explanation  of  con- 
sciousness and  the  conscious  powers — each  affords 
renewed  verification  to  the  religious  postulate,  "Man 
is  the  possessor  of  a  spirit." 

So,  too,  when  a  man  lives  as  if  there  were  no 
God,  he  experiences  the  confutation  of  his  atheism 
in  his  daily  stumbles  over  the  divine  laws.  But 
when  a  man  honestly  makes  the  experiment  of  act- 
ing steadily  as  if  in  the  presence  of  a  heavenly 
Father,  he  finds  corroborative  witnesses  in  every 
day's  events.  In  whatever  place  he  bows  in  sincere 
worship  to  this  Adorable  Being,  he  finds  it  good  to 
be  there.  As  often  as  in  sincere  prayer  he  seeks, 
from  above,  light  in  the  perplexities  of  duty,  or  help 
in  the  hard  battle  of  life,  he  receives  the  blessed  an- 
swer— a  heavenly  beam  upon  his  way,  a  God-given 
strength  in  the  dusty  conflict.  Whenever,  at  bit- 
ter cost  to  his  own  desires  and  pleasures,  he  has 
yet  obeyed  the  higher  law  of  the  Holy  One,  he  has 
heard  in  his  heart  the  approving  whisper  of  a  Divine 
voice.  Whatever  may  be  urged  against  the  power 
of  prayer  to  modify  external  Nature,  the  spiritual 
inward  efficiency,  the  blessed  reality  of  Divine  com- 


214  PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

munion,  is  known  by  the  direct  experience  of  mill- 
ions. 

In  the  fortunes  of  kings  and  private  citizens,  in 
the  rise  and  fall  of  states,  in  the  fluctuations  of  races 
and  the  vicissitudes  of  society,  in  every  case  of  con- 
duct, there  is  shown,  to  use  Matthew  Arnold's  favor- 
ite phrase,  "an  Enduring  Power,  not  ourselves, 
which  makes  for  righteousness."  Reward  and  retri- 
bution this  Power  allots  in  strict  conformity  to  obe- 
dience or  disobedience  of  the  Divine  Command- 
ment. Every  student  of  history  knows  how  strange 
oftentimes  are  these  vindications  of  God's  moral 
law.  How  curiously  innocence  is  justified,  evil  un- 
earthed !  The  engineer  of  vice  hoist  with  his  own 
petard,  Hainan  hanged  on  his  own  gallows !  How 
sublime  are  the  verifications  of  an  Almighty  Friend 
which  the  records  of  the  past,  the  fresh  life  of  the 
present,  afford !  Witness  the  strength  which  the 
weakest,  trusting  in  him,  have  drawn  to  bear  super- 
human burdens ;  the  bursting  of  the  rockiest  heart, 
under  the  heavenly  touch,  into  sweet  blossoms  of 
tenderness  and  charity  !  Behold  the  sereneness  with 
which  pain  and  anguish  can  be  borne,  the  bright 
faith  with  which  the  mourner  can  stand  by  the  fresh- 
filled  grave,  the  courage  with  which  the  champion 
of  the  right  faces  poverty,  odium,  perpetual  annoy- 
ance, nay,  goes  to  the  stake  or  the  gallows,  assured 
of  his  vindication,  hereafter  on  earth  and  at  once 
above.  Whatever  contradictions,  anomalies,  enig- 
mas, the  infinitely-varied  phenomena   of  life   can 


POSITIVE  SCIENTIFIC  PROOFS,  ETC.         215 

present  to  religion,  the  sacred  CEdipus,  by  one  or  the 
other  of  her  two  great  truths,  the  existence  of  the 
soul  and  the  existence  of  God,  can  always  present  a 
solution. 

What  Whewell  calls  the  consilience  of  induc- 
tions— the  leaping  together  of  numerous  facts  of 
different  kinds  from  unconnected  quarters  to  one 
point,  every  new  discovery  or  hitherto  troublesome 
exception  taking  at  once  a  position  in  harmony — is 
here  wonderfully  exemplified.  It  is  a  characteristic 
of  the  theistic  argument.  In  the  exposition  which 
we  gave  of  the  theistic  induction,  it  will  be  remem- 
bered how  line  after  line  of  inference  converged  to 
the  same  point ;  and  here,  in  the  process  of  verifica- 
tion, we  see  the  same  thing  afresh. 

"  Now,"  as  Whewell  says,1  "  that  rules  springing 
from  remote  and  unconnected  quarters  should  thus 
leap  to  the  same  point,  can  only  arise  from  that 
being  the  point  where  truth  resides.  Accordingly, 
the  cases  in  which  inductions  from  classes  of  facts 
altogether  different  have  thus  jumped  together  be- 
long only  to  the  best-established  theories  wdiich  the 
history  of  science  contains."  For  examples  in 
which  it  has  been  especially  exemplified,  Whewell 
refers  to  the  "  Theory  of  Universal  Gravitation ': 
and  the  "Undulatory  Theory  of  Light,"  and  says 
that  the  Consilience  of  Inductions  in  them  is  con- 
sidered as  establishing  them  beyond  all  doubt.  "  No 
example  can  be  pointed  out  in  the  whole  history  of 

1  "Novum  Organum  Renovatum,"  p.  88. 


216    PHYSICAL  AXD  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

science,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,"  adds  Whewell,  "in 
which  this  Consilience  of  Inductions  has  given  testi- 
mony in  favor  of  an  hypothesis  afterward  discov- 
ered to  be  false." 

Stronger  verification,  then,  than  this  would 
hardly  seem  to  be  desired  of  religion  by  any  one. 
Yet,  if  it  is  demanded,  it  has  a  further  confirma- 
tion— that  of  prediction.  "  There  is  no  more  con- 
vincing proof,"  says  Prof.  Jevons,  "  of  the  soundness 
of  scientific  knowledge  than  that  it  thus  confers 
the  gift  of  foresight."  "  Prevision,"  says  Auguste 
Comte,  "  is  the  test  of  true  theory."  The  astrono- 
mer's predictions  of  the  movements  of  the  planets, 
the  occurrence  of  eclipses,  the  return  of  comets — 
even,  as  in  Leverrier's  discovery  of  Neptune,  the 
existence  and  movement  of  a  hitherto  unknown 
body — afford  the  most  conspicuous  proof  of  the  cor- 
rectness of  the  Copernican  system  and  the  New- 
tonian laws.  Even  so  have  the  prophets  of  old  and 
the  seers  of  God,  in  all  time,  through  their  compre- 
hension of  the  great  laws  of  moral  gravitation,  been 
able  to  foretell  the  course  of  states  and  the  coming 
eclipses  of  individual  and  national  glory.  They 
have  reckoned  beforehand,  according  to  the  calculus 
of  Divine  Sovereignty,  the  setting  of  unholy  stars, 
now  proudly  flaming  in  the  zenith,  and  the  trium- 
phant rise  of  unsullied  orbs,  veiled  then,  though  they 
were,  in  darkness — and,  lo !  it  has  come  to  pass 
even  as  they  have  said.  If  all  supernatural  instruc- 
tion or  illumination  be  denied  to  the  prophetic  voices 


POSITIVE  SCIENTIFIC  PROOFS,  ETC.         217 

of  ancient  and  modern  times,  then  the  amazing 
power  of  insight,  which  must  be  ascribed  to  normal 
spiritual  vision,  as  developed  by  religion,  testifies 
with  equal  significance  to  the  truth  of  the  great 
principles  on  which  religion  is  based. 

Thus  has  religion  positive  foundations  of  the 
same  kind  as  science,  and  they  may  be  built  up  in  a 
genuine  scientific  order.  Doubtless  a  sharp  scien- 
tific critic  would  find  objections  to  such  an  inductive 
demonstration  of  religion.  He  would  charge  that 
these  so-called  inductions  were  not  complete  and 
exact,  but  imperfect — at  best,  only  approximated 
perfection.  He  would  say,  "  They  are  not  simple 
colligations  of  facts,  but  they  are  theories  built  up 
and  superimposed  upon  them.  They  are  not  cautious, 
exhaustive  generalizations  of  coexistences ;  but  they 
are  hypotheses  to  which  you  have  boldly  leaped. 
And  the  verification  you  appeal  to,  though  in  much 
seeming  to  be  given,  is  also  in  much  wanting." 

!Now,  these  objections  I  should  not  altogether 
deny;  but  I  should  give  to  them  this  twofold  an 
swer,  which  ought  fairly,  it  seems  to  me,  to  stop  tne 
mouth  of  the  scientific  objector,  or  of  any  objector 
who  usually  accepts,  without  hesitation,  current  sci- 
entific conclusions  :  First,  in  the  previous  chapters  it 
has  been  shown  in  general  that  every  one  of  these 
objections  applies  to  science  as  well  as  to  religion. 
Secondly,  in  the  positive  presentation,  in  the  present 
chapter,  not  a  single  medium  of  proof  is  employed 
in  regard  to  which  it  is  not  or  cannot  be  shown 
10 


21 S    PHYSICAL  AXD  RELIGIOUS  KXOWLEDGE. 

that  the  very  same  argument,  or  its  counterpart,  is 
customarily  and  confidently  employed  by  science. 
If  one  is  to  be  rejected,  then  both  should  be  re- 
jected ;  if  one  is  to  be  trusted,  then  both  should  be 
trusted. 

To  sum  up,  then,  the  argument  of  the  last  four 
chapters.  Science,  equally  with  religion,  has  a  faith- 
basis.  It  uses  intuition,  authority,  eyidence,  and 
probable  inference,  and  is  often  destitute  of  possible 
verification.  Science,  no  more  than  religion,  can 
withhold  nor  does  withhold  its  belief  from  the 
supersensual,  the  immaterial,  or  the  inconceiyable. 
Inexactness,  uncertainty,  and  variation  in  the  results 
of  its  labors,  are  faults  found  in  science  as  well  as 
in  religion.  On  the  other  hand,  religion,  as  well 
as  science,  has  an  experimental  basis.  It  grounds 
itself  on  observation  ;  it  proceeds  by  induction,  and 
it  confirms  its  truths  by  verifications  and  previsions. 

In  this  similarity  of  science  and  religion  is  there 
not  something  that  should  have  practical  influence 
with  tliat  daily-increasing  number  who,  while  ac- 
cepting implicitly  all  the  established  truths  and  even 
the  wildest  speculations  of  science,  look  upon  reli- 
gion with  suspicion,  if  not  contempt  ?  "We  commend 
to  all  such  the  words  of  Huxley :  "  By  science  I 
understand  all  knowledge  which  rests  upon  evidence 
and  reasoning  of  a  like  character  to  that  which 
claims  our  assent  to  ordinary  scientific  propositions, 
and  if  any  one  is  able  to  make  good  the  assertion 
that   his   theology  rests   upon  valid   evidence   and 


POSITIVE  SCIEXTIFIC  PROOFS,  ETC.         219 

sound  reasoning,  then  it  appears  to  me  that  such 
theology  must  take  its  place  as  a  part  of  science." 

I  respectfully  ask  why  the  fundamental  truths  of 
religion  do  not  already  stand  in  that  category  with 
as  good  a  right  as  the  greater  portion  of  what  is 
calJ  ed  science  % 


220   PHYSICAL   AND   RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 


CHAPTEE  VIII. 


CONCLUSION. 


A  survey,  then,  of  the  relations  of  Physical  and 
Keligious  Knowledge  will  bring  a  candid  inquirer, 
I  believe,  to  these  conclusions :  There  is  no  neces- 
sary and  rightful  antagonism  between  Science  and 
Religion.  The  actual  opposition  existing  is  due  to 
the  fact  that  each  is,  in  many  things,  ignorant  of 
itself  and  ignorant  of  the  other.  A  fuller  mutual 
acquaintance  will  so  disclose  to  each  its  respective 
field  that  former  intrusions  shall  cease,  and  will  so 
fix  the  identitv  of  each  that  other  enemies  shall  not, 
as  hitherto,  be  mistaken  for  it.  More  thorough 
knowledge  will  also  show  that  the  claims  both  have 
made  to  exclusive  knowledge  and  supremacy  cannot 
be  sustained.  Each  has  similar  weaknesses;  each 
has  similar  supports.  Neither  can  overthrow  the 
other  with  safety  to  itself.  Each,  in  fact,  needs  the 
other,  and  should  make  of  it  an  ally. 

AVitJiout  Science  to  correct  and  guide  it,  Reli- 
gion is  constantly  going  astray.  The  countless  ex- 
cesses and  irrationalities  of  superstition,  the  varied 
corruptions  of  every  faith,  adoration  of  stick  an^ 


CONCLUSION.  221 

etone,  lizard  or  bull ;  devil-worship,  witchcraft,  or- 
gies of  Bacchus,  devouring  rites  of  Moloch,  and 
unclean  sacrifices  to  Yenus — all  these  illustrate  the 
mournful  aberrations  into  which  devotion  inevita- 
bly runs  when  divorced  from  understanding.  Zeal, 
without  knowledge,  as  surely  curses  the  world  as 
with  knowledge  it  blesses  it.  Religion  should  en- 
courage and  urge  the  study  of  science,  rather  than 
forbid  it.  The  Church,  instead  of  anathematizing 
the  great  interpreters  of  Nature,  should  canonize 
them.  The  truly  devout  beho'ld  God's  footsteps 
everywhere ;  and  everywhere,  in  the  depths  of  the 
earth  as  in  the  heights  of  the  sky,  in  forms  of 
matter  as  in  the  thoughts  of  men,  should  search  for 
"  the  fullness  of  him  that  filleth  all  in  all." 

The  whole  universe  is  the  embodiment  and  man- 
ifestation of  its  Creator.  Every  ray  that  streams 
from  every  star,  every  leaf  that  hangs  on  every  tree, 
each  living  structure,  each  moving  creature,  tells  the 
attentive  student  something  of  the  thoughts  and 
character  of  the  Divine  Artist.  Nature,  then,  to 
the  religious  man,  is  God's  oldest  Testament,  his 
most  direct  Scripture.  The  ideas  disclosed  in  it  are 
God's  thoughts ;  Natural  laws,  Divine  laws  ;  Natu- 
ral History,  a  chapter  of  Natural  Theology.  To 
every  new  investigation  of  the  physicist,  Religion 
should  say  God-speed  ;  to  every  new  discovery  of  the 
savant,  All-hail.  The  finding  of  a  Codex  Sinaiticus 
should  not  rejoice  the  Church  more  than  the  dis- 
covery of  a  new  law  in  Nature. 


222    PHYSICAL  AXD  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

And  Religion  needs  not  only  to  accept  the  cor- 
rections and  recognize  the  coadjutorship  of  Science 
in  disclosing  the  ways  of  God,  but  it  should  engraft 
into  itself,  I  believe,  more  of  the  scientific  spirit. 
Instead  of  aiming  to  defend  systems  already  escab- 
lished  and  to  bolster  np  foregone  conclusions,  it 
should  go  simply  with  inquiring  mind  to  the  eternal 
facts.  Casting  aside  all  theological  prepossessions 
and  pride  of  opinion,  it  should  interrogate  carefully 
all  the  oracles  of  the  world,  without  and  within,  and 
patiently  await,  and  humbly  receive  their  answers. 
Its  only  test  of  conclusions  should  be  their  truth 
or  falsehood — not  their  supposed  soundness  or  un- 
soundness, their  flatteringness  or  humbringness,  their 
pleasure  or  their  pain.  It  should  never  feign  certi- 
tude when  it  possesses  none.  It  should  discriminate 
to  itself,  and  own  in  its  public  teaching  the  differ- 
ence between  what  in  its  realm  is  known  and  what 
is  but  guessed  at.  It  should  employ  more  constantly 
the  scientific  methods,  gleaning  its  evidence  from  as 
wide  a  field  as  possible ;  sifting  it  with  care,  retain- 
ing only  what  is  fact,  verifying  each  theory  in  some 
satisfactory  way  before  accepting  it  as  proved. 

Theology,  as  I  have  endeavored  to  show,  is  fully 
able  to  bear  such  a  scientific  ordeal.  In  its  essentials, 
if  not  in  other  respects,  it  has  all  the  elements  of  an 
inductive  science.  "  It  includes,"  as  has  truly  been 
said,  "a  multitude  of  positive  facts — facts  of  ob- 
servation and  experience  having  a  relationship  with 
each  other,  and  hence  capable  of  classification  and 


CONCLUSION.  223 

generalization,  giving  us  positive  knowledge  up  to  a 
certain  point,  and  beyond  that  it  includes  a  domain 
of  truth  involved  in  the  facts  observed,  and  to  be 
divined  by  laying  under  those  observed  facts  gen- 
eral conceptions  or  hypotheses^  which,  though  larger 
than  our  experience,  must  yet  be  true  to  our  expe- 
rience." Thus  Religion  is  capable  of  being  made  a 
genuine  Science,  and  it  will  never,  I  believe,  main- 
tain the  purity,  attain  the  stability  and  accuracy, 
reach  unto  the  depth  and  breadth  of  truth  which  is 
within  the  demands  of  its  grand  mission  unto  man- 
kind, until  it  thus  weds  Science  to  itself. 

And,  similarly,  Science  needs  the  help  and  in- 
spiration of  Religion  to  fulfill  the  true  measure  of  its 
usefulness.  Religion,  without  Science,  is  like  writ- 
ing a  history  without  facts ;  Science,  without  Reli- 
gion, is  a  biography  without  a  subject.  Religion, 
without  Science,  is  a  pyramid  without  base ;  Science, 
without  Religion,  is  the  pyramid  without  apex. 

No  one  can  earnestly  study  Nature  without 
taking  the  first  steps  on  the  road  of  Faith.  As 
he  traces  backward  and  forward  the  generations 
of  the  world,  he  makes  the  acquaintance  of  that 
which  is  no  less  than  Eternal.  As  he  meditates 
the  course  of  outspreading  matter  and  space,  he 
recognizes  that  which  is  Infinite.  As  he  tracks  the 
restless  energies  of  the  Kosmos,  he  comes  to  know 
that  which  he  cannot  call  less  than  Omnipotent. 
TJhrough  the  multitudinous  variety  of  the  universe, 
he  discerns  the  Unity  on  the  axis  of  which  all  turns — 


224   PHYSICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

the  single  centre  from  which  all  radiates.  In  the 
contemplation  of  this  stupendous  power,  the  man  of 
science  is  absorbed.  He  believes  that  all  happiness 
depends  upon  the  knowledge  of  it,  and  the  conform- 
ing of  men's  lives  to  it.  He  recognizes  himself  as 
bound  up  with  it,  and  is  filled  with  inexpressible  awe 
as,  in  his  studies,  he  enters  into  its  marvelous  secrets. 
"  It  comes  that,"  as  Strauss  says,  "  he  demands  for 
his  Kosmos  the  same  piety  that  the  devout  man  of 
old  demanded  for  his  God."  Thus  Science  imbues 
its  devotees  with  the  spirit  of  worship ;  leads  them, 
if  not  to  the  inner,  nevertheless  to  the  outer  court  of 
Religion.  Only  one  more  step  is  needed — that  from 
the  force  to  the  Cause ;  from  the  law  to  the  Law- 
giver— to  bring  them  into  the  temple  of  God. 

And  this  further  step  Science  ought  logically  to 
take.     The  boast  of  Bacon  that  he  had  taken  all 
knowledge  as  his  province  is  the  duty  of  Science 
To  ignore  the  whole  domain  of  spiritual  truth  is 
but  half  to  perform  its  mission. 

Religion  has  its  facts  as  well  as  Science  ;  the  im- 
material thought,  the  self -directing  will,  the  sense 
of  right  and  wrong,  the  consciousness  of  moral  re- 
sponsibility, these  are  facts  as  much  as  attraction  of 
magnet  or  undulation  of  sound-wave.  Sublime  as- 
pirations, immortal  longings  which  protoplasm  can- 
not account  for ;  heroisms  and  self-sacrifices  not  to 
be  explained  on  the  principle  of  the  greatest  good 
of  the  greatest  number ;  a  current  in  human  af- 
fairs that  runs  steadily  toward  the  right,  the  true, 


CONCLUSION.  225 

and  the  good — these,  also,  are  facts.  A  complete 
science  ought  to  study  these  facts  candidly,  and 
draw  from  them  their  logical  inductions — soul  and 
God  ;  a  complete  science  should  take  note,  not 
only  of  the  verifications  of  physical  doctrines,  in 
physical  experience,  but  of  these  equally  strong 
verifications  in  spiritual  experience  of  spiritual 
truths.  It  should  own  the  force  not  onlv  of  those 
native  predispositions  that  assure  us  of  Nature's 
constancy  and  Matter's  indestructibility,  but  of  those 
ineradicable  convictions  that  asseverate  the  soul's 
immortality.  It  should  recognize  not  only  the 
questioning  of  the  human  mind  for  second  causes, 
but  its  imperative  demand  for  the  First  Cause. 
Does  it  become  Science  to  exert  itself  so  diligently 
merely  to  pass  from  effect  to  anterior  effect,  from 
one  law  to  another  law,  only  a  little  more  simple, 
but  never  ask  what  is  the  prime  power  on  which  all 
depend — the  Lawgiver  behind  all  the  laws  ?  Shall 
it  trace  with  such  painstaking  assiduity  every  thread 
of  the  Kosmos,  each  hair-breadth  of  those  exquisite 
webs  of  interacting  laws,  so  harmoniously  blended, 
so  pervaded  with  the  tokens  of  profoundest  intelli- 
gence, and  then,  when  we  ask  for  the  Weaver  of  this 
infinite  marvel,  the  Reality  behind  this  veil — tell 
us  there  is  none — the  veil  is  all  f  Xo  !  The  true 
man  of  science  must  work  with  that  conviction  un- 
der which  "Whewell  says  he  wrote  his  "  Philosophy 
of  the  Inductive  Sciences,"  "  that  no  philosophy  of 
the  universe  can  satisfy  the  minds  of  thoughtful 


226    PHYSICAL  AXD  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE. 

men  which  does  not  deal  with  such  questions  as  in- 
evitably force  themselves  upon  our  notice,  respect- 
ing the  Author  and  the  object  of  the  universe ;  and 
also  under  the  conviction  that  every  philosophy  of 
the  universe  which  has  any  consistency  must  sug- 
gest answers,  at  least,  conjectural,  to  such  questions. 
No  Kosmos  is  complete  from  which  the  question  of 
Deity  is  excluded ;  and  all  Kosmology  has  a  side 
turned  toward  Theolo^v.'' 

It  is  through  the  mastering  and  manifestation  of 
this  theological  side,  this  Godward  face,  that  Sci- 
ence delivers  to  mankind  its  noblest  message.  That 
which  makes  Science  something  more  than  the 
gratification  of  an  idle  curiosity  or  a  low-lived  utili- 
tarianism— that  which  gives  to  it  in  the  thoughts  of 
the  higher-minded  a  sacred  dignity — is  the  belief 
that  by  it  we  are  daily  making  clearer  and  clearer 
the  ways  of  that  Infinite  Power,  the  features  of 
that  Divine  Image,  which  all  things  shadow  forth. 

Soon  may  that  happy  day — happy  for  both  alike 
— dawn  upon  the  world,  when  Religion  and  Science, 
recognizing  the  common  ground  on  which  they 
stand,  the  similar  methods,  objects,  and  results  which 
characterize  each,  the  need  they  stand  in  of  each 
other,  the  one  God  of  whom  they  both  prophesy, 
shall  cordially  join  hands  in  his  service  ! 


THE    END. 


T& 


*'$• 


:**:'■**.■ 


2*-'±# 


■ 


%£•!%'.* 


1       i 


'-i***^  '  M  ■  '--<i 


r-<&.  SU, 


^'      .*- 


W  ■  ■ 


J 


v  Tf 


*&'*£ 

•;||^*-:*i 

*$ 


:;lV:  •#•- 


. 


*':  •#' 


wk 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  01014  2679 


m 


